BX  8 . C58 

Committee  on  the  War  and  t 
Religious  Outlook 
Christian  unity 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/christianunityit00comm_0 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY:  ITS  PRINCIPLES 
AND  POSSIBILITIES 


FINAL  REPORTS  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE 
WAR  AND  THE  RELIGIOUS  OUTLOOK 


Religion  among  American  Men.  (Ready.) 

The  Missionary  Outlook  in  the  Light  of  the  War.  (Ready.) 
The  Church  and  Industrial  Reconstruction.  (Ready.) 
Christian  Unity:  Its  Principles  and  Possibilities.  (Ready.) 
The  Teaching  Work  of  the  Church. 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY: 
ITS  PRINCIPLES  AND 
POSSIBILITIES 


THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  WAR 
AND  THE  RELIGIOUS  OUTLOOK 


ASSOCIATION  PRESS 

Nbw  York:  347  Madison  Avenub 
1921 


Copyright,  1921,  by 
William  Adams  Brown 


EDITORIAL  PREFACE 


I.  The  Committee  on  the  War  and  the  Religious  Outlook 
and  Its  Work 

This  volume  is  one  in  a series  of  studies  that  is  being 
brought  out  by  the  Committee  on  the  War  and  the  Reli- 
gious Outlook.  The  Committee  was  constituted,  while  the 
war  was  still  in  progress,  by  the  joint  action  of  the  Federal 
Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America  and  the  Gen- 
eral War-Time  Commission  of  the  Churches  and  was  an 
expression  of  the  conviction  that  the  war  had  laid  upon 
the  churches  the  duty  of  the  most  thorough  self-examina- 
tion. The  Committee  consisted  of  a small  group  of  rep- 
resentative men  and  women  of  the  various  Protestant 
Churches,  appointed  “to  consider  the  state  of  religion  as 
revealed  or  affected  by  the  war,  with  special  reference  to 
the  duty  and  opportunity  of  the  Churches,  and  to  prepare 
these  findings  for  submission  to  the  Churches.”  While 
created  through  the  initiative  of  the  Federal  Council  and 
the  General  War-Time  Commission,  it  was  given  entire 
freedom  to  act  independently  according  to  its  own  judg- 
ment and  was  empowered  to  add  to  its  number. 

The  Committee  was  originally  organized  with  Presi- 
dent Henry  Churchill  King  as  its  Chairman  and  Profes- 
sor William  Adams  Brown  as  Vice-Chairman.  On  ac- 
count of  prolonged  absence  in  Europe,  President  King 
was  compelled  to  resign  the  chairmanship  in  the  spring  of 
1919  and  Professor  Brown  became  the  Chairman  of  the 
group,  with  President  King  and  Rev.  Charles  W.  Gilkey 
as  Vice-Chairmen.  Rev.  Samuel  McCrea  Cavert  was 
chosen  to  serve  as  Secretary  of  the  Committee  and  Rev. 
Angus  Dun  was  Associate  Secretary  for  several  months. 

The  peculiar  significance  of  the  Committee  lies  in  the 


v 


VI 


EDITORIAL  PREFACE 


fact  that  it  was  appointed  to  do  nothing  except  to  study. 
It  has  proceeded  on  the  assumption  that  the  Churches 
need  to  do  serious  thinking  and  to  think  together. 

When  the  Committee  began  its  work  four  main  lines 
of  inquiry  suggested  themselves  as  of  chief  impor- 
tance : 

1.  What  effect  has  the  war  had  upon  the  personal  reli- 
gious experience?  How  far  has  it  reenforced,  how  far 
altered  the  existing  type  of  religious  life  and  thought? 

2.  What  effect  has  the  war  had  upon  the  organized 
Christian  Church?  What  changes,  if  any,  are  called  for 
in  its  spirit  and  activities  ? 

3.  What  effect  has  the  war  had  upon  Christian  teach- 
ing? What  changes,  if  any,  are  called  for  in  the  content 
or  method  of  the  Church’s  teaching? 

4.  What  effect  has  the  war  had  upon  the  duty  of  the 
Church  with  reference  to  social  problems  of  the  time? 
What  reconstructions  are  needed  to  make  our  social 
order  more  Christian  ? 

As  the  Committee  proceeded  with  these  inquiries,  sev- 
eral distinct  fields  of  investigation  emerged  and  led  the 
Committee  to  adopt  the  plan  of  bringing  out  a group  of 
reports  instead  of  a single  volume.  Three  of  these  studies 
have  already  appeared.  The  first  was  entitled  “Religion 
among  American  Men : as  Revealed  by  a Study  of  Con- 
ditions in  the  Army,”  and  dealt  with  the  lessons  learned 
from  the  experience  of  chaplains  and  other  religious 
workers  in  the  army.  The  second  volume,  entitled,  “The 
Missionary  Outlook  in  the  Light  of  the  War,”  considered 
the  bearing  of  the  new  international  situation  on  the  sig- 
nificance, the  policies,  and  the  opportunities  of  foreign 
missions.  The  third  report,  “The  Church  and  Industrial 
Reconstruction,”  was  concerned  with  the  responsibility  of 
the  Church  for  Christianizing  industrial  relationships. 
Another  report  which  will  soon  appear  will  deal  with  the 
teaching  work  of  the  Church  in  the  light  of  the  present 
situation.  The  present  volume  is  an  earnest  attempt  to 


EDITORIAL  PREFACE 


vii 

study  the  problem  of  church  unity  and  to  discover  the 
path  of  progress  for  the  future. 

Earlier  preliminary  publications  of  the  Committee  con- 
sisted of  a comprehensive  bibliography  on  the  War  and 
Religion  and  a series  of  pamphlets  under  the  general 
heading,  “The  Religious  Outlook,”  including  the  follow- 
ing numbers : 

“The  War  and  the  Religious  Outlook,”  by  Dr.  Robert 
E.  Speer;  “Christian  Principles  Essential  to  a New 
World  Order,”  by  President  W.  H.  P.  Faunce ; “The 
Church’s  Message  to  the  Nation,”  by  Professor  Harry 
Emerson  Fosdick;  “Christian  Principles  and  Industrial 
Reconstruction,”  by  Bishop  Francis  J.  McConnell ; “The 
Church  and  Religious  Education,”  by  President  William 
Douglas  Mackenzie;  “The  New  Home  Mission  of  the 
Church,”  by  Dr.  William  P.  Shriver ; “Christian  Aspects 
of  Economic  Reconstruction,”  by  Professor  Herbert  N. 
Shenton ; “The  War  and  the  Woman  Point  of  View,” 
by  Rhoda  E.  McCulloch ; “The  Local  Church  after  the 
War,”  by  Rev.  Charles  W.  Gilkey. 

Our  special  thanks  are  due  to  Association  Press,  which 
has  assumed  responsibility  for  issuing  the  publications  of 
the  Committee. 

II.  The  Present  Volume 

The  present  report  has  been  prepared  by  a special  sub- 
committee, created  by  the  Committee  on  the  War  and  the 
Religious  Outlook,  under  the  chairmanship  of  Dr.  Robert 
E.  Speer. 

The  membership  was  as  follows: 

Rev.  Peter  Ainslie,  President  of  the  Association  for  the 
Promotion  of  Christian  Unity 
Rev.  Alfred  Williams  Anthony,  Executive  Secretary  of 
the  Home  Missions  Council 

President  Clarence  A.  Barbour,  of  the  Rochester  Theo- 
logical Seminary 

Rev.  Arthur  J.  Brown,  Secretary  of  the  Board  of  For- 


EDITORIAL  PREFACE 


viii 

eign  Missions  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
U.  S.  A. 

Rev.  William  Adams  Brown,  Professor  in  the  Union 
Theological  Seminary 

Rev.  Samuel  McCrea  Cavert,  Secretary  of  the  Committee 
on  the  War  and  the  Religious  Outlook 
Rev.  James  H.  Franklin,  Secretary  of  the  American  Bap- 
tist Foreign  Mission  Society 

Rev.  Roy  B.  Guild,  Secretary  of  the  Commission  on 
Councils  of  Churches  of  the  Federal  Council  of  the 
Churches  of  Christ  in  America 
Rev.  Hubert  C.  Herring,  Secretary  of  the  National  Coun- 
cil of  Congregational  Churches1 
Professor  Charles  M.  Jacobs,  of  the  Lutheran  Theologi- 
cal Seminary 

Rev.  Frederick  H.  Knubel,  President  of  the  United  Lu- 
theran Church 

Rt.  Rev.  Arthur  S.  Lloyd,  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church 

Rev.  Henry  H.  Meyer,  Editor  of  Sunday  School  Publi- 
cations of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
Rev.  Frank  Mason  North,  Secretary  of  the  Board  of  For- 
eign Missions  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
Professor  George  W.  Richards,  President  of  the  General 
Synod  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  United  States 
Dr.  Robert  E.  Speer,  Secretary  of  the  Board  of  Foreign 
Missions  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  U.  S.  A. 
President  J.  Ross  Stevenson,  of  the  Princeton  Theological 
Seminary 

Professor  Williston  Walker,  of  the  Yale  Divinity  School. 
Dean  Henry  B.  Washburn,  of  the  Episcopal  Theological 
i School  at  Cambridge 

Professor  Herbert  L.  Willett,  of  the  Disciples’  Divinity 
House  of  the  University  of  Chicago 

‘The  section  of  this  report,  entitled,  “The  Congregational 
Churches  and  Church  Unity,”  was  prepared  by  Dr.  Herring  for 
the  Committee  on  the  War  and  the  Religious  Outlook  only  a few 
days  before  his  lamented  death. 


EDITORIAL  PREFACE 


IX 


This  committee  held  several  conferences  for  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  problems  to  be  faced  and  the  formulation 
of  its  point  of  view,  one  of  them  consisting  of  a two  days’ 
retreat  (July  12  and  13,  1920)  at  Wallace  Lodge,  Yon- 
kers, N.  Y. 

In  the  table  of  contents  the  names  of  those  who  have 
been  primarily  responsible  for  the  various  parts  of  the 
report  are  set  beneath  the  titles  of  the  chapters.  No  chap- 
ter, however,  represents  simply  the  point  of  view  of  a 
single  individual.  In  all  cases  the  manuscripts  were  sub- 
mitted to  the  whole  Committee  for  discussion,  criticism, 
and  suggestions.  The  volume,  therefore,  is  not  merely  a 
symposium  but  the  product  of  collective  study. 

For  the  final  form  of  the  volume  an  editorial  commit- 
tee, consisting  of  Dr.  Speer,  Dr.  William  Adams  Brown, 
and  the  Secretary,  was  responsible. 

November  15,  1920.  Samuel  McCrea  Cavert,  Secretary. 


Committee  on  the  War  and  the  Religious  Outlook 


Mrs.  Fred  S.  Bennett 
Rev.  Wm.  Adams  Brown 
Miss  Mabel  Cratty 
Mr.  George  W.  Coleman 
Pres.  W.  H.  P.  Faunce 
Prof.  Harry  E.  Fosdick 
Rev.  Charles  W.  Gilkey 
Mr.  Frederick  Harris 
Prof.  W.  E.  Hocking 
Rev.  Samuel  G.  Inman 
Prof.  Charles  M.  Jacobs 
Pres.  Henry  Churchill  King 
Bishop  Walter  R.  Lambuth 
Bishop  F.  J.  McConnell 


Rev.  Charles  S.  Macfarland 
Pres.  Wm.  D.  Mackenzie 
Dean  Shailer  Mathews 
Dr.  John  R.  Mott 
Rev.  Frank  Mason  North 
Dr.  E.  C.  Richardson 
Very  Rev.  H.  C.  Robbins 
Right  Rev.  Logan  H.  Roots 
Dr.  Robert  E.  Speer 
Rev.  Anson  Phelps  Stokes 
Rev.  James  I.  Vance 
Very  Rev.  Henry  B.  Washburn 
Pres.  Mary  E.  Woolley 
Prof.  Henry  B.  Wright 


Rev.  William  Adams  Brown,  Chairman 
Pres.  Henry  Churchill  King,  Vice-Chairman 
Rev.  Charles  W.  Gilkey,  Vice-Chairman 
Rev.  Samuel  McCrea  Cavert,  Secretary 
105  East  22d  St.,  New  York 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Editorial  Preface v 

Introduction i 

William  Adams  Brown 

1.  The  Purpose  of  the  Report  i 

2.  The  Occasion  of  the  Report 2 

3.  The  Meaning  of  Unity  and  Union  as  Discussed 

in  the  Report 8 

4.  The  Scope  of  the  Report 12 

PART  I 

The  Present  Situation 

I.  The  War  and  Christian  Unity 19 

Robert  E.  Speer 

1.  The  New  Demands  upon  the  Churches 19 

2.  The  Agencies  of  the  Churches  for  War-Time 

Service 22 

3.  The  Problem  of  Unity  Which  Emerged 27 

4.  The  Problems  of  Unity  Which  Remain  for  the 

Future 34 

a.  The  Relation  between  the  Christian  Asso- 
ciations and  the  Churches 35 

b.  The  Relation  of  the  Denominations  to  One 

Another : 36 

II.  The  Present  Situation  in  the  Denominations 45 

1.  The  Congregational  Churches  and  Unity  46 
Hubert  C.  Herring 

2.  The  Disciples  and  Unity ! 52 

Peter  Ainslie 

3.  The  Lutheran  Church  and  Unity 57 

Frederick  H.  Knubel  and  Charles  M.  Jacobs 

4.  The  Methodist  Church  and  Unity 63 

Frank  Mason  North 

5.  The  Churches  of  the  Northern  Baptist 

Convention  and  Unity 70 

Clarence  A.  Barbour 

6.  The  Presbyterian  Church  and  Unity 77 

J.  Ross  Stevenson 

7.  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  and  Unity  83 
Henry  B.  Washburn 

8.  Other  Churches  and  the  Problem  of  Unity  . 90 

Samuel  McCrea  Cavert 


xi 


CONTENTS 


xii 


PAGE 


III.  The  Present  Status  of  Local  Cooperation 96 

The  Movement  toward  Church  Unity  in 

Small  Communities 96 

Alfred  Williams  Anthony 

a.  Early  Efforts  to  Stop  Waste  of  Resources.  . 97 

b.  The  Union  Church 97 

c.  The  Federated  Church  99 

d.  The  Denominational  Church  Functioning 

for  the  Whole  Community 102 

e.  The  Present  Responsibility  for  Developing 

Community  Churches 107 

2.  The  Federation  of  Churches  in  Cities  and 

States no 

Roy  B.  Guild 

a.  The  Development  of  Local  Cooperation  . . in 

b.  Principles  Underlying  Local  Cooperation..  115 

c.  What  Is  Achieved  by  Cooperation 118 

IV.  The  Present  Situation  in  the  Church  as  a Whole 

Robert  E.  Speer 

1.  The  Undenominational  Movement 123 

a.  The  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association.  . . 126 

b.  The  Young  Women’s  Christian  Association.  132 

2.  The  Movement  toward  Administrative  Union. . . 134 

a.  In  Separate  Lines  of  Activity 135 


(1)  The  Foreign  Missions  Conference 

(2)  The  Home  Missions  Council 

(3)  The  Council  of  Church  Boards  of 


Education 

(4)  The  Sunday  School  Council 

b.  On  an  Inclusive  Scale:  The  Interchurch 

World  Movement 140 

3.  The  Movement  toward  Federal  Union:  the  Fed- 

eral Council 150 

4.  The  Movement  toward  Organic  Union 156 

a.  The  Philadelphia  Conference  on  Organic 

Union 156 

b.  The  World  Conference  on  Faith  and  Order.  160 

V.  Present  Problems  in  the  Movement  toward 

Union 165 

William  Adams  Brown 

I.  Factors  Which  Impede  the  Movement  toward 

Union  168 

a.  Factors  Growing  out  of  the  Past  History  of 

the  Existing  Churches 168 

b.  Factors  Growing  out  of  Differences  of 

Religious  Conviction 171 


CONTENTS 


xiii 

PAGE 

c.  Factors  Due  to  Permanent  Differences  in 

the  Type  of  Religious  Experience 175 

d.  Factors  Due  to  Lack  of  Clear  Perception  of 

the  Question  at  Issue 178 

2.  Factors  Which  Further  the  Movement  toward 

Union 178 

a.  Factors  Growing  out  of  the  Nature  of  the 

Christian  Religion  Itself 179 

b.  Factors  Growing  out  of  the  World’s  Need 

of  a United  Church 182 

c.  Factors  Growing  out  of  Past  Experience  of 

the  Practice  of  Cooperation 185 

d.  Factors  Growing  out  of  a Better  Under- 

standing of  the  Nature  of  the  Union  to 
Be  Sought  187 

3.  Points  of  Contact  between  Differing  Attitudes 

toward  the  Existing  Churches 189 

4.  Bearing  on  the  Different  Kinds  of  Union 

Proposed 192 

a.  Administrative  Union 193 

b.  Federal  Union 194 

c.  Organic  Union 198 

PART  n 

The  Historical  Background 

VI.  Divisive  and  Unitive  Forces  in  the  Christian 

Church  Prior  to  the  American  Period 207 

George  W.  Richards 

1.  The  Apostolic  Period  207 

2.  The  Catholic  Period  212 

3.  The  Protestant  Period  217 

4.  Bearing  on  the  Present  Situation 227 

VII.  The  Development  of  the  Denominations  in 

American  Christianity 230 

George  W.  Richards 

1.  The  Influence  of  the  New  Surroundings  on  the 

Churches 232 

2.  The  Attitude  of  the  Churches  toward  One 

Another  in  the  Colonial  Period 235 

3.  Causes  of  Divisions  in  the  American  Churches  . . 239 

4.  Attempts  at  Union  of  American  Churches 245 

VIII.  Undenominational  Movements  in  the  United  States  256 
Herbert  L.  Willett 

1.  The  Revival  Movements 258 

2.  The  Evangelical  Alliance 262 

3.  The  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association 267 


XIV 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

4.  The  Young  Women’s  Christian  Association 271 

5.  The  Student  Movement 273 

6.  Laymen’s  and  Young  People’s  Movements 276 

7.  Movements  for  Social  Reform 280 

IX.  Interdenominational  Movements  in  the  United 

States 285 

1.  The  Cooperative  Movement  in  the  Early 

Part  of  the  Nineteenth  Century 285 

Williston  Walker 

a.  Cooperation  between  Congregationalists  and 

Presbyterians  in  the  “Plan  of  Union”  . . . 285 

b.  The  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for 

Foreign  Missions  as  a Cooperative  Enter- 
prise  290 

c.  Cooperation  in  the  American  Bible  Society . 295 

d.  Rise  of  the  Christian  Denomination  (Dis- 

ciples) as  anEffort  to  Secure  Organic  Union  298 

2.  Foreign  Missions  and  Christian  Unity 302 

Arthur  J.  Brown  and  S.  M.  Cavert 

a.  Cooperation  in  Missionary  Work 304 

b.  Building  up  a United  Church  in  Foreign 

Lands 309 

3.  Religious  Education  and  Christian  Unity..  317 
Henry  H.  Meyer 

a.  The  Development  of  Cooperation 318 

b.  The  Present  Necessity  for  Greater  Coopera- 

tion   323 

PART  HI 
The  Future 

X.  Principles  Which  Underlie  Further  Progress  ....  327 

1.  Principles  Which  Define  the  Nature  of  the  Union 

to  Be  Sought  328 

2.  Principles  Which  Define  the  Method  to  Be  Fol- 

lowed   335 

3.  Consequences  for  the  Future 342 

APPENDICES 

I.  Movements  toward  Union  in  Other  Countries  ....  349 
Newman  Smyth  and  S.  M.  Cavert 

II.  Plan  of  the  American  Council  on  Organic  Union.  355 

III.  The  Lambeth  Statement  on  Reunion 359 

IV.  The  Geneva  Conferences  in  1920.., 366 

William  Pierson  Merrill 

V.  Selected  Bibliography 371 

Index 383 


INTRODUCTION 


In  other  studies  the  Committee  on  the  War  and  the 
Religious  Outlook  has  considered  certain  phases  of  the 
Church’s  experience  and  of  the  Church’s  responsibility — 
notably  the  missionary  work  of  the  Church,  the  relation 
of  the  Church  to  industrial  problems,  and  the  responsibil- 
ity of  the  Church  for  religious  education.  But  all  these 
questions  force  us  back  to  a deeper  question,  namely,  the 
question  of  the  nature  of  the  Church  itself.  We  speak 
of  the  responsibility  of  the  Church  for  evangelism,  for 
teaching,  for  promoting  social  justice  and  good  will. 
But  what  is  this  Church  which  must  do  these  things? 
Where  is  it  to  be  found,  and  how  is  it  to  function?  Ac- 
cording as  we  answer  this  question  will  be  our  attitude 
toward  each  of  the  more  specific  questions  concerning 
the  Church’s  responsibility.  According  as  we  find  some 
way  to  make  our  convictions  as  to  this  supreme  Christian 
interest  effective  in  action  will  be  our  hope  of  success, 
or  our  certainty  of  failure,  all  along  the  line. 

i.  The  Purpose  of  the  Report 

This  central  and  fundamental  question  will  concern  us 
in  the  present  volume.  Our  theme  will  be  the  nature  of 
the  Church  and  its  method  of  operation.  And  here  we 
find  the  surprising  fact  that  when  we  raise  this  question 
there  is  no  single  body  to  which  we  can  go  for  an  authori- 
tative answer.  What  we  see  is  not  a church  but  churches, 
each  with  its  own  independent  history,  each  with  its  highly 
developed  organization,  each  responsible  primarily  to  its 
own  constituency  for  that  part  of  the  work  of  Christ 
which  falls  to  its  lot.  It  is  clear  that  if  we  are  to  have  a 
satisfactory  conception  of  the  Church  we  must  begin  by 
considering  the  relation  between  the  churches.  We  must 
determine  whether  they  are  parts  of  a larger  unity  and, 


i 


2 


INTRODUCTION 


if  so,  in  what  way  that  unity  manifests  itself  and  what 
can  be  done  to  provide  it  with  more  effective  organs  of 
expression. 

This  question  in  turn  falls  into  two  parts,  closely  re- 
lated indeed,  but  still  separable.  The  first  is  a question  of 
spiritual  attitude  and  temper  of  mind;  the  second,  of  or- 
ganization and  machinery.  How  far,  as  a matter  of  fact, 
are  the  churches  one  in  spirit?  How  far  have  they 
found  means  to  express  that  inner  unity  in  organs  of 
common  activity?  The  first  is  the  question  of  Christian 
unity  in  the  largest  sense;  the  second  the  question  of 
church  unity.  It  is  with  the  second  of  these  questions 
that  we  shall  be  particularly  concerned  in  this  report.  We 
shall  ask  ourselves  to  what  extent  the  churches  have 
found  means  to  express  their  common  unity  in  action,  to 
what  extent  the  one  true  spiritual  Church,  in  which  all 
Christians  profess  to  believe,  has  succeeded  in  creating 
the  instruments  through  which  it  can  reveal  its  presence  to 
the  world  and  perform  the  tasks  committed  to  it  by  Jesus 
Christ,  the  great  Head  of  the  Church.  And  if  it  has  not 
yet  succeeded,  as  all  must  confess  that  it  has  not,  what 
are  the  prospects  of  its  succeeding  in  the  future?  What 
plans  are  being  made,  and  with  what  hope  of  success, 
for  furnishing  Christians,  who  profess  to  be  one,  with 
the  means  of  demonstrating  that  unity  to  those  who  do 
not  now  believe  in  it? 

2.  The  Occasion  of  the  Report 

Important  at  all  times,  the  subject  we  propose  for  dis- 
cussion is  imperative  today.  For  here,  as  so  often,  prac- 
tice will  not  wait  for  theory.  Partly  as  a result  of  the 
war,  partly  owing  to  causes  that  long  antedate  it,  the 
movement  toward  unity  among  the  churches  has  been 
developing  with  surprising  rapidity.  The  Interchurch 
World  Movement  was  only  the  most  widely  advertised 
of  a number  of  movements  that  have  engaged  the  atten- 
tion not  of  individual  Christians  only  but  of  responsible 


INTRODUCTION 


3 


ecclesiastical  bodies.  Not  to  speak  of  older  organizations 
like  the  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in 
America  and  the  Young  Men’s  and  Young  Women’s 
Christian  Associations,  all  three  of  which,  as  a result  of 
the  war,  have  been  expanding  their  activities  in  interest- 
ing and  significant  ways ; not  to  mention  the  recent  activi- 
ties of  the  Commission  on  Faith  and  Order,  there  have 
been  a number  of  new  movements  that  deserve  careful  at- 
tention. There  is  the  recent  movement  for  organic  union 
initiated  by  the  Presbyterian  Church,  which  has  resulted 
in  the  Philadelphia  Conference  and  the  presentation  of  a 
definite  plan  to  the  churches.  There  are  the  various  pro- 
posals looking  toward  the  reunion  of  the  members  of 
closely  related  ecclesiastical  bodies,  such  as  separated 
branches  of  Methodists  and  of  Presbyterians.  There  is 
the  significant  multiplication  of  local  federations  and  the 
growth  of  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  community  church, 
which  has  already  given  rise  to  a number  of  interesting 
experiments,  and  the  very  suggestive  proposal  of  the  so- 
called  Concordat  between  the  Episcopal  and  Congrega- 
tional Churches.  Indeed,  so  many  and  so  vigorous  are  the 
different  movements  for  greater  unity  among  Christians 
that  it  has  been  seriously  suggested  that  we  need  a new 
movement  to  unite  the  existing  movements  for  unity. 

But  there  is  another  reason  which  makes  the  present 
study  timely.  For  although  as  a result  of  the  war  there 
has  been  a rapid  development  of  the  movement  toward 
unity,  there  are  not  wanting  signs  that  a reaction  has 
begun  to  set  in.  The  fate  of  the  Interchurch  World 
Movement  is  a case  in  point.  Begun  under  the  over- 
whelming impulse  of  the  war,  this  enterprise,  like  the 
similar  movement  in  politics  which  gave  rise  to  the 
League  of  Nations,  seemed  to  promise  the  immediate 
realization  of  results  of  the  highest  possible  significance. 
Under  the  spell  of  the  enthusiasm  which  it  called  forth, 
difficulties  which  had  hitherto  been  deemed  insuperable 
appeared  of  slight  importance.  It  now  seems,  however,  as 


4 


INTRODUCTION 


if  too  little  account  had  been  taken  of  the  inherent  diffi- 
culties in  the  case,  and  methods  of  publicity  and  ad- 
vertising had  been  relied  upon  to  take  the  place  of 
those  slower  measures  of  education  which  require  years 
for  their  consummation.  In  the  reaction  against  these 
exaggerated  expectations  there  are  many  who  are  inclined 
to  depreciate  the  entire  interdenominational  movement, 
and  to  see  in  a return  to  the  old  denominational  rivalry — 
the  analogue  in  religion  of  the  strife  of  nations  which  we 
had  fervently  hoped  the  war  was  to  end — the  only  hope 
for  the  future  of  religion. 

Such  a view,  it  need  hardly  be  said,  is  shortsighted. 
History  has  its  eddies,  but  the  main  course  of  the  stream 
is  onward  to  the  sea.  The  movement  toward  unity  among 
churches,  as  among  nations,  may  have  received  a tem- 
porary check,  but  it  is  only  to  gather  its  forces  for  a new 
advance.  If  there  have  been  mistakes  they  will  be  cor- 
rected. If  there  are  lessons  to  take  to  heart  they  will  be 
learned.  But  of  one  thing  we  may  be  sure.  In  the  great 
enterprise  of  uniting  all  the  Christian  forces  for  an  effec- 
tive forward  movement  against  the  hosts  of  selfishness 
and  unbelief,  there  can  be  no  turning  back. 

It  is  as  a contribution  to  the  reenforcement  of  this 
faith  that  this  report  is  offered.  The  work  of  many 
hands,  it  is  inspired  by  a single  purpose.  It  is  our  hope 
to  furnish,  to  those  who  are  trying  to  guide  the  movement 
toward  Christian  unity  into  safe  and  fruitful  channels, 
the  information  they  need  for  wise,  constructive,  and  per- 
manent work.  With  this  purpose  in  mind  we  propose  to 
survey  the  different  forms  which  the  movement  for 
unity  has  taken,  not  only  among  the  different  denomina- 
tions of  Christians,  but  within  each  of  the  more  impor- 
tant Christian  churches.  For  unity — it  can  never  be  too 
often  insisted — is  no  less  a task  to  be  achieved  within 
each  communion  itself  than  between  the  different  com- 
munions. We  shall  try  to  analyze  the  motives  from 
which  the  desire  for  unity  springs,  to  weigh  the  obstacles 


INTRODUCTION 


S 


which  impede  and  the  helpful  influences  which  reenforce 
the  movement,  and  from  this  study  to  gain  certain  prin- 
ciples which  may  guide  in  laying  plans  for  the  future.* 

It  was  the  experience  of  the  churches  in  the  war  which 
suggested  the  studies  of  which  this  is  the  conclusion  and 
created  the  contacts  which  made  them  possible.  This 
experience,  moreover,  contributed  much  to  our  under- 
standing of  the  problems  of  Christian  unity.  In  the  first 
place,  it  revealed  to  us  the  extent  of  the  unity  which  al- 
ready existed.  In  the  second  place,  it  showed  us  new 
ways  in  which  the  existing  unity  could  find  expression  in 
action.  Along  both  these  lines  it  taught  us  lessons  of  the 
highest  significance  for  the  future. 

To  be  sure,  the  extent  of  this  twofold  contribution  has 
not  as  yet  been  generally  recognized.  Amid  the  pressure 
of  more  dramatic  events  the  work  of  the  Church  held 
small  place  in  the  imagination  of  the  public.  Much  of  it 
was  indirect  and  self-effacing,  rendered  through  other 
agencies,  and  finding  no  formal  record  in  reports  and  bul- 
letins. What  was  done  officially  was  done  through  many 
different  instrumentalities,  and  the  story  of  their  achieve- 
ments has  not  yet  been — perhaps  never  will  be — com- 
pletely told.  Nevertheless,  it  is  true  that  the  story  is  well 
worth  telling.  It  is  worth  telling  because  of  what  it  re- 
veals as  to  the  progress  made  in  the  past.  It  is  worth 
telling  because  of  what  it  teaches  as  to  the  possibilities 
of  the  future. 

It  is  worth  telling,  we  repeat,  because  of  what  it  reveals 
as  to  the  progress  made  in  the  past.  The  movement  for 
Christian  unity  is  not  of  recent  origin.  It  is  as  old  as 
Christianity  itself,’  and  the  cooperation  attained  during 


’The  present  study  confines  itself  to  the  movement  toward 
church  unity  in  the  United  States.  An  important  appendix, 
however,  discusses  present  movements  in  other  countries  than 
the  United  States. 

‘This  fact  is  made  abundantly  clear  in  the  section  dealing  with 
the  divisive  and  the  unitive  forces  in  the  history  of  Christianity 
prior  to  the  American  period. 


6 


INTRODUCTION 


the  war  was  possible  only  because  of  earlier  experiments 
which  had  made  the  idea  of  unity  familiar  to  multitudes 
of  Christians  and  had  intensified  their  purpose  to  realize 
it.  When  war  broke  out  there  was  no  time  to  educate 
men  as  to  the  importance  of  Christians  getting  together. 
We  had  to  make  shift  with  such  unity  as  we  already  had. 
Our  problem  was  to  find  agencies  through  which  this 
unity  could  express  itself  in  the  most  effective  and  ex- 
peditious way.  What  was  done,  therefore,  is  instructive, 
not  least  of  all  for  this,  that  it  shows  us  to  what  extent 
our  efforts  after  unity  have  thus  far  attained. 

This  was  true  both  within  the  individual  denominations 
and  in  the  broader  sphere  of  interchurch  relations.  In 
each  case  the  war  gave  the  existing  desire  for  unity  a 
mighty  impetus.  The  new  responsibilities  confronting 
each  denomination  were  in  themselves  a summons  to 
more  unified  denominational  undertakings.  The  inade- 
quacies of  former  procedure  were  more  clearly  seen. 
Churches  that  had  no  organ  through  which  they  could 
function  between  the  meetings  of  their  highest  judicato- 
ries became  conscious  of  a lack,  as  they  faced  the  unex- 
pected demands  upon  them.  Those  churches  which  hap- 
pened to  be  meeting  in  annual  assembly  soon  after  the  out- 
break of  the  war  were  in  a position  to  create  war  commis- 
sions promptly,  but  others  found  themselves  perplexed  by 
lack  of  adequate  machinery.  But  it  is  in  the  larger  field  of 
interdenominational  cooperation  that  the  lessons  of  the 
war  were  specially  instructive.  Here,  too,  it  was  not 
merely  a matter  of  recognizing  the  sentiment  for  unity, 
but  of  creating  agencies  through  which  this  sentiment 
could  find  expression  in  action.  In  the  General  War- 
Time  Commission  of  the  Churches  nearly  forty  different 
religious  bodies  found  an  agency  of  common  action.  The 
study  of  the  steps  through  which  this  agency  was  brought 
into  being  and  the  principles  on  which  it  operated  is, 
therefore,  full  of  instruction  to  the  student  of  Christian 
unity. 


INTRODUCTION 


7 


But  in  addition  to  this  war-time  experience,  the  situa- 
tion in  which  the  Church  finds  itself  today  summons  us 
to  a thorough  study  of  the  problem  of  Christian  unity. 
The  troubles  into  which  the  Interchurch  World  Move- 
ment fell  do  not  mean  that  the  causes  which  have  brought 
it  into  being  have  ceased  to  operate  any  more  than  a tem- 
porary failure  of  the  League  of  Nations  means  that  it  is 
possible  for  America  to  revert  to  the  position  of  national 
isolation  which  it  held  before  the  war.  In  Church  as  in 
State,  isolation  is  unthinkable.  On  every  side  Christians 
are  confronted  by  issues  which  render  cooperation  inev- 
itable. The  only  question  which  remains  to  be  discussed 
is  that  of  method.  Take  any  one  of  the  phases  of  reli- 
gious interest  which  challenge  us  strongly  today,  and  we 
are  brought  back  to  the  problem  of  unity.  There  is  the 
task  of  Christian  missions  in  the  widest  sense.  Facing 
as  we  do  in  all  the  non-Christian  countries  not  only  a re- 
vived national  consciousness,  but  with  it  a renewed  vital- 
ity in  the  religions  which  are  so  intimately  associated  with 
this  consciousness,  how  futile  it  is  to  suppose  that  a 
divided  Christianity  can  be  adequate ! There  is  the  task 
of  Christianizing  our  industrial  relations.  Here,  too,  we 
find  unity  an  indispensable  condition  of  success.  Face 
to  face  with  the  enormous  aggregations  of  capital  on  the 
one  hand  and  of  labor  on  the  other,  what  hope  is  there  of 
bringing  Christian  principles  to  prevail,  unless  Chris- 
tians themselves  are  agreed  as  to  what  these  principles 
are  and  have  some  organ  through  which  to  bring  these 
principles  to  expression?  Above  all,  in  the  matter  of 
Christian  education  is  unity  essential.  Where  so  many 
and  such  powerful  influences  are  working  to  destroy 
faith  in  God  and  in  a spiritual  order  in  the  universe, 
where  there  are  such  wide  areas  in  which  the  elementary 
principles  of  our  Christian  religion  are  ignored,  or  even 
unknown,  what  prospect  is  there  of  meeting  the  need  of 
the  rising  generation  for  a sympathetic  teaching  of  the 
fundamentals  of  the  Gospel,  unless  those  who  are  alike 


8 


INTRODUCTION 


responsible  for  success  come  together  for  a common  at- 
tack upon  the  common  task? 

But  there  is  a reason  even  deeper  and  more  fundamen- 
tal still.  The  unity  of  Christians  is  important  not  simply 
because  of  what  it  enables  us  to  do,  but  of  what  it  helps 
us  to  express.  It  is  a witness  to  the  truth  of  the  central 
tenet  of  our  religion,  that  there  is  one  God  who  is  Father 
of  us  all,  one  Christ  who  is  Master  of  us  all,  and  one 
Spirit  who  inspires  and  vitalizes  us  all.  When  the  aspira- 
tions of  mankind  after  unity,  cherished  through  years  of 
agony  and  sealed  by  an  unexampled  sacrifice,  have  been 
so  rudely  shaken ; when  so  many  are  turning  back  with 
heavy  hearts  to  the  old  selfish  and  divided  life,  in  politics, 
in  industry,  in  the  wider  sphere  of  international  relations, 
what  counterpoise  can  be  found  powerful  enough  to  hold 
the  faith  of  humanity  steady  and  keep  it  from  sinking 
back  to  the  old  level  of  doubt  and  despair?  What  but 
the  spectacle  of  a society  of  men,  wide  as  mankind  and 
as  diversified  in  interests,  who  have  yet  found  in  their 
religion  a bond  that  has  made  them  one  indeed,  and  are 
witnesses  through  their  activities  to  the  reality  of  such  a 
unity?  In  this  witness  to  the  world,  the  central  object  of 
our  Lord’s  high-priestly  prayer — “that  they  all  may  be 
one,  that  the  world  may  believe” — is  to  be  found  the  su- 
preme motive  to  Christian  unity. 

3.  The  Meaning  of  Unity  and  Union  as  Discussed 
in  the  Report 

In  discussions  of  Christian  unity  confusion  often  arises 
because  of  lack  of  agreement  as  to  the  meaning  of  com- 
mon terms.  We  shall,  therefore,  first  attempt  to  call  at- 
tention to  certain  distinctions,  frequently  overlooked,  and 
to  suggest  a use  of  terms  which  will  be  followed  in  our 
subsequent  discussion  and  which  may  conduce  to  clear- 
ness and  mutual  understanding.' 

*The  definitions  here  given  are  only  preliminary  to  the  general 
discussion.  The  meaning  and  significance  of  the  different  kinds 
of  union  are  considered  in  detail  in  a later  chapter. 


INTRODUCTION 


9 


At  the  outset  it  is  impoi-tant  to  distinguish 

a.  Between  unity  and  union.  The  first  is  a matter  of 
inner  spirit;  the  latter  of  external  organization.  Chris- 
tians already  possess  unity  in  the  measure  that  they  are 
one  with  Christ  in  spirit,  and  as  such  are  members  of  His 
one  invisible  Church — the  company  of  all  who  share  His 
divine  and  redeeming  life. 

Union,  on  the  other  hand,  has  to  do  with  the  form  of 
outward  organization.  It  concerns  churches  as  corporate 
bodies  rather  than  the  individuals  who  compose  them. 
It  means  the  expression  of  the  inner  unity  of  Chris- 
tians in  an  external  unity  among  the  churches.  This  dis- 
tinction is  often  not  observed  but  it  is  essential  to  clear 
discussion.  And  since  it  is  with  the  relationships  of 
churches  that  we  are  primarily  concerned  in  this  report, 
the  term  union  is  usually  the  more  accurate  one.  All  the 
movements  which  we  have  presently  to  discuss — whether 
organic,  federal,  or  administrative — which  take  place  in 
the  region  of  official  institutional  life  and  affect  churches 
in  their  corporate  capacity,  are  a part  of  the  general  prob- 
lem of  union.4 

Within  the  general  field  of  union  we  must  further 
distinguish 

b.  Between  such  forms  of  union  as  are  brought  about 
by  the  official  action  of  church  bodies,  local  or  national, 
and  the  union  of  individual  Christians  in  associations  or 
societies,  such  as  the  Young  Men’s  and  the  Young  Wom- 
en’s Christian  Associations.  These  are  themselves  incor- 

Tn  the  interest  of  strict  accuracy  a distinction  should  also  be 
made  between  cooperation,  as  meaning  any  joint  action  so  long 
as  it  remains  unofficial  and  temporary,  and  union,  as  meaning 
official  action  based  on  approved  and  permanent  rules  mutually 
agreed  upon.  In  practice  the  line  of  demarcation  between  the 
two  is  difficult  to  draw. 

The  difference  between  unity,  as  meaning  essential  oneness  of 
spirit,  and  uniformity,  as  meaning  identity  of  expression,  we 
assume  to  be  fully  recognized.  It  is  less  generally  perceived  that 
a similar  distinction  needs  to  be  made  between  union  and  uni- 
formity. The  nature  and  possible  extent  of  this  difference  will 
be  discussed  later. 


10 


INTRODUCTION 


porated  bodies  performing  many  of  the  functions  of 
churches  and  might  conceivably  develop  into  new  denom- 
inations, to  be  considered  with  other  churches  in  any 
thoroughgoing  discussion  of  church  union.  But  they 
themselves  disclaim  this  position.  They  profess  to  be 
voluntary  associations  of  Christians  banded  together  for 
definite  purposes,  but  leaving  the  membership  and  respon- 
sibility of  their  individual  members  with  the  churches 
to  which  they  belong.  Their  nearest  analogy  is  the  or- 
ders in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  but  they  differ  in  that 
the  latter  are  officially  sanctioned  and  controlled  by  the 
Church,  whereas  this  is  not  the  case  in  American  Protes- 
tantism. In  so  far  as  any  relation  of  official  recognition 
and  control  is  brought  about  between  the  Y M C A and 
the  churches,  as  has  been  done  in  Scotland,  the  Y M C A 
is  removed  from  the  category  of  purely  voluntary 
organizations  and  becomes  a part  of  the  Church  which 
is  the  subject  of  the  various  plans  of  union  to  be  dis- 
cussed. Where  this  is  not  the  case  the  Associations  re- 
main voluntary  bodies,  outside  the  particular  sphere  of 
our  immediate  discussion.5 6 

Within  the  sphere  of  church  union  as  thus  limited  and 
defined,  we  must  observe  the  difference 

c.  Between  union  as  a problem  which  affects  denom- 
inations as  a whole  and  such  forms  of  union  as  are  pos- 
sible between  sections  or  agencies  of  churches — for  ex- 
ample, between  church  boards,  educational  institutions, 
or  individual  local  churches.  In  general  we  shall  use  the 
term  “administrative  union”  to  denote  the  latter  of  these 
forms  of  union,  leaving  “organic”  and  “federal  union”  to 
designate  the  former.  By  administrative  union  we  shall 
understand  any  definite  arrangement  between  official 
agencies  of  the  churches  which  makes  possible  common 


5What  is  true  of  the  Christian  Associations  is  true  also  of 
such  federations  of  churches  as  are  constituted  by  the  action  of 

individuals  and  not  of  churches  as  such,  for  example,  the  New 
York  City  Federation. 


INTRODUCTION 


ii 


responsibility  and  united  action  in  the  planning  of  poli- 
cies, the  spending  of  money,  or  the  doing  of  work.  Such 
union  in  turn  may  be  either  national,  regional,  or  local. 

Among  denominations  as  corporate  units  we  must  dis- 
tinguish 

d.  Between  federal  and  organic  union.  By  federal 
union  we  shall  understand  any  form  of  official  union 
between  denominations  as  a whole  which  leaves  their  orig- 
inal organization  unimpaired.  The  parties  to  a federal 
union  delegate  certain  powers  to  another  agency  but 
with  the  proviso  that  they  are  able  to  resume  them 
at  any  time.  Organic  union,  however,  carries  with  it  a 
certain  note  of  irrevocableness.  It  may  be  more  or  less 
extensive,  involving  the  transfer  of  responsibility  in  many 
matters  or  in  few  but  in  so  far  as  power  is  delegated  it  is 
done  so  with  the  idea  of  definitely  building  up  a new  and 
permanently  responsible  authority. 

While  it  is  not  hard  to  distinguish  in  theory  between 
administrative,  federal,  and  organic  union  along  the  lines 
above  indicated  it  is  difficult  to  carry  out  these  distinc- 
tions consistently  in  practice.  This  is  due  partly  to  the 
fact  that  the  terms  are  used  by  different  people  in  different 
and  often  inconsistent  senses,  partly  to  the  fact  that  the 
territory  covered  by  them  overlaps.  The  terms,  as  we 
shall  see  more  clearly  later,  are  not  exclusive.  There  may, 
indeed,  be  union  which  is  at  once  administrative,  federal, 
and  organic.  And  there  may  be  many  cases  of  union  of 
which  it  is  not  easy  to  say  at  any  moment  of  time  whether 
they  are  primarily  one  or  the  other.  We  are  dealing  here 
with  living  organisms,  not  with  changeless  organizations, 
and  in  the  process  of  change  from  one  form  of  union  into 
another  we  may  not  be  able  to  recognize  the  exact  moment 
when  the  transition  is  made. 

Finally  we  must  distinguish 

e.  Between  union  as  a problem  affecting  the  whole 
Church,  or  at  least  all  that  section  of  the  Church  included 
within  a certain  geographical  area  (e.  g.  the  United 


12 


INTRODUCTION 


States)  and  the  union  of  church  bodies  of  the  same  or 
closely  affiliated  families.  Those  who  speak  of  organic 
union  commonly  have  the  first  in  mind,  though  the  term 
is  equally  applicable  in  the  second  and  narrower  sphere. 
Thus  to  many  organic  union  is  a synonym  for  the  reunion 
of  all  Christendom.  To  them  it  means  such  unity  in  the 
whole  outward  organization  as  shall  correspond  to  an 
existing  inner  unity,  which  we  have  already  distinguished 
from  union  as  purely  spiritual.  This  use  is  naturally 
suggested  by  the  word  “organic,”  which  is  a vital  rather 
than  a legal  term  and  so  seems  to  be  particularly  appli- 
cable when  we  are  thinking  of  the  whole  body  of  the 
Church.  It  would  tend  to  clarify  our  thought  if  we  could 
have  a different  term  for  designating  a union  which  is 
“organic”  so  far  as  it  goes,  but  which  may  be  less  in- 
clusive than  the  entire  Church.  And  since  we  are  consid- 
ering institutions  and  organizations  the  phrase  “corporate 
union,”  in  the  sense  of  a union  of  two  or  more  corporate 
bodies,  suggests  itself  as  a term  which  is  clearly  equally 
applicable  both  to  the  union  of  all  churches  and  of  any 
two  or  more.  We  could  then  leave  the  term  organic 
union  to  designate  the  ultimate  ideal  of  a completely  uni- 
fied Christendom.  For  the  present,  however,  the  use  of 
the  word  organic  union  in  both  senses  is  so  widespread 
that  it  is  impossible  to  dispense  with  it.  We  shall,  there- 
fore, continue  to  use  it  to  designate  any  form  of  corpo- 
rate union  which,  under  the  terms  of  the  union  contem- 
plated, carries  with  it  the  implication  of  finality. 

4.  The  Scope  of  the  Report 

In  the  present  study  we  shall  deal  primarily  with  ques- 
tions of  church  union  or,  in  other  words,  questions  which 
affect  the  relation  between  the  denominations  themselves. 
This  movement,  as  we  shall  see,  has  two  main  forms,  often 
associated  respectively  with  the  terms  federal  union  and 
organic  union.  The  first  takes  its  departure  from  the 
existing  church  organizations  and  tries  to  find  means^  of 


INTRODUCTION 


13 


bringing  about  closer  cooperation  and  fellowship  between 
these.  The  second  takes  its  departure  from  the  concep- 
tion of  the  Church  as  a whole  and  tries  to  find  means  of 
realizing  the  unity  implicit  in  this  conception.  While 
independent  in  origin  and  in  part  in  motive,  the  two 
movements  are  intimately  associated  and  are  coming 
closer  together  all  the  time.  But  there  exists  no  single 
treatment  which  includes  in  its  discussion  both  aspects  of 
the  movement  and  endeavors  to  point  out  the  true  relation 
between  them.  This  lack  we  hope  in  a measure  to  remedy 
by  the  following  pages. 

But  the  movement-  for  church  union  is  itself  a part  of 
a much  larger  development,  namely,  the  movement  for 
Christian  unity  in  the  widest  sense  of  which  we  have  been 
speaking.  This  is  at  heart  a spiritual  movement,  eluding 
our  attempt  at  exact  description  or  definition.  Without 
the  existence  of  this  spiritual  unity  among  Christians,  any 
form  of  external  or  corporate  organization  would  be 
empty  and  futile.  To  discuss  our  theme  adequately, 
therefore,  we  must  take  this  wider  spiritual  background 
into  full  account.  But  unity  cannot  exist  in  a vacuum. 
Wherever  this  spirit  is  found  it  must  seek  some  form  of 
expression,  and  such,  as  a matter  of  fact,  we  find  to  be 
the  case.  Quite  apart  from  any  formal  and  official  pro- 
grams of  union  put  forth  by  the  denominations  them- 
selves, there  is  a vast  field  of  activity  in  which  individual 
Christians  have  come  together  in  associations  and  soci- 
eties, or  in  which  separate  agencies  or  boards  of  churches 
have  found  means  of  working  together  in  what  we  have 
called  administrative  union.  All  this  field  of  cooperative 
endeavor  falls  properly  within  the  scope  of  such  a study 
as  this. 

And  one  thing  more  needs  to  be  added.  The  various 
movements  which  we  shall  study  in  this  report  are 
themselves  only  the  last  of  a long  series  of  attempts  to 
realize  church  unity.  No  one  is  qualified  to  deal  with  the 
problem  today  who  has  not  informed  himself  of  these 


14 


INTRODUCTION 


earlier  attempts  and  learned  the  lessons  which  they  have 
to  teach  both  of  success  and  failure.  This  historical 
background,  too,  we  have  included  in  our  study  as  fur- 
nishing necessary  material  for  those  who  would  address 
themselves  to  the  task  of  bringing  about  fuller  unity 
among  the  churches  today. 

The  task  thus  undertaken  will  determine  the  order  of 
treatment.  In  the  first  place  we  shall  study  the  experi- 
ence of  the  churches  during  the  war,  with  a view  of  dis- 
covering the  measure  of  unity  which  it  revealed  and  the 
lessons  taught  as  to  the  way  of  securing  greater  unity  in 
the  future.  In  the  second  place  we  shall  consider  the 
present  situation  in  the  denominations  and  their  attitude 
toward  the  question  of  cooperation  and  union.  We  shall 
then  examine  the  present  status  of  the  movement  toward 
various  forms  of  union  between  the  denominations.  This 
will  require  us  to  distinguish  between  the  movement  for 
unity  within  local  communities  and  those  larger  enter- 
prises whose  aim  is  a unity  that  is  nation-wide.  Con- 
sideration of  this  last  will  lead  us  to  an  analysis  of  the 
present  problems  involved  in  this  movement,  taking  into 
account  both  the  factors  which  impede  and  those  which 
further  it. 

To  this  discussion  of  the  existing  situation  we  shall 
add  certain  historical  studies  that  furnish  a much  needed 
background  of  information.  The  first  will  deal  with  the 
divisive  and  the  unitive  forces  in  the  Church  prior  to 
the  American  period ; the  second,  with  the  development 
of  the  denominations  in  the  United  States  and  their  atti- 
tude toward  one  another  at  different  periods.  The  sig- 
nificant attempts  to  secure  united  action  among  Christians 
by  ignoring  the  questions  at  issue  between  the  denomina- 
tions, through  such  organizations  as  the  Christian  Asso- 
ciations, will  also  be  studied.  Finally,  we  shall  review 
the  efforts  to  secure  united  action  among  the  churches 
themselves,  and  some  of  the  more  important  influences 
that  have  worked  in  that  direction. 


INTRODUCTION 


15 


We  shall  then  be  in  a position  to  sum  up  the  con- 
clusions to  which  our  study  leads  as  to  the  principles 
which  condition  further  progress,  both  in  the  present  day 
and  in  the  longer  future. 

The  first  part,  dealing  with  the  present  situation,  and 
the  second  part,  furnishing  the  historical  background, 
might  well  be  read  in  inverse  order.  We  shall,  however, 
put  the  discussion  of  present  practical  problems  in  the 
foreground  because  of  the  urgency  of  the  situation  that 
we  face  today. 


PART  I 

THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


CHAPTER  I 


THE  WAR  AND  CHRISTIAN  UNITY 

The  World  War  was  one  of  those  times  of  congested 
human  experience  when  all  the  institutions  of  society  are 
subjected  to  new  and  extreme  tests  and  when  their  ade- 
quacy or  inadequacy  is  vividly  revealed.  The  Christian 
Church  shared  in  this  ordeal  of  judgment.  Part  of  its 
testing  was  of  its  ability  to  see  clearly  and  to  hold  tena- 
ciously to  its  perennial  mission,  a mission  which  could 
not  allow  it  to  be  reduced  to  a mere  adjunct  to  the  State 
absorbed  in  war.  The  Church  had  duties  essential  to  the 
moral  and  spiritual  life  of  the  nation,  as  not  only  tem- 
porarily engaged  in  conflict  but  called  also  to  live  per- 
manently according  to  Christian  ideals.  How  well  or 
ill  the  Church  met  all  its  tests  we  are  not  called  on  in  this 
report  to  inquire.  We  are  to  consider  here  the  one  ques- 
tion of  the  light  which  the  war  threw  upon  the  problem 
of  Christian  cooperation  and  unity  as  it  emerged  in  con- 
nection with  the  war.  How  fully  was  the  Church  pre- 
pared to  address  itself  to  the  special  tasks  which  the 
crisis  brought?  What  lessons  did  the  war  teach  as  to 
the  ways  in  which  the  Church  could  meet  its  responsibil- 
ities more  adequately  in  the  future? 

I.  The  New  Demands  upon  the  Churches 

The  war-time  situation  made  new  demands,  insistent 
and  inescapable,  upon  the  churches.  In  the  first  place 
there  was  a host  of  unaccustomed  tasks  to  be  assumed. 
The  ministrations  of  religion  had  to  be  provided  for  a 
multitude  of  persons  suddenly  plunged  into  an  unfamiliar 
life,  either  in  training  camps  or  in  centers  of  war  indus- 

19 


20 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


try.  A new  responsibility  of  social  ministry  was  laid  upon 
the  Christian  forces  of  the  country  in  connection  both 
with  the  army  itself  and  with  the  camp  communities,  on 
the  moral  character  of  which  so  largely  depended  the 
welfare  of  our  men.  Millions  of  other  men  and  women, 
left  disabled  or  destitute  by  the  ravages  of  war,  called  for 
speedy  succor  by  all  who  had  the  mind  of  Christ.  To 
carry  on  these  tasks  new  workers  had  to  be  secured,  new 
machinery  put  into  motion,  and  new  contacts  with  gov- 
ernmental agencies  secured.  More  important  even  than 
these  obvious  needs  was  that  of  maintaining  high  moral 
ideals  and  aims  in  the  nation  during  a period  when  many 
influences  were  endangering  them.  And  beyond  all  this 
there  was  the  far  more  difficult  task  of  keeping  alive  the 
spirit  of  international  brotherhood,  with  foes  as  well  as 
friends,  in  the  day  when  of  all  days  it  was  least  easy 
to  do  so. 

In  the  second  place,  and  as  a result  of  these  new  re- 
sponsibilities, there  was  a demand  for  unity  such  as  the 
churches  had  never  before  had  to  face.  Without  it  it 
was  hopeless  to  try  to  meet  the  situation  in  any  adequate 
way.  The  task  was  too  great  for  all  together,  to  say 
nothing  of  attempting  it  piecemeal  through  unrelated 
agencies.  The  need  for  coordinated  effort  was  all  the 
clearer  because  so  much  of  the  work  involved  proper  un- 
derstanding with  the  national  Government.  Obviously  it 
could  not  deal  one  by  one  with  the  churches  as  separate 
organizations. 

Most  clearly  of  all  was  the  demand  for  unity  among 
the  Christian  forces  brought  home  to  them  by  the  unity 
which  already  existed  in  the  nation  at  large.  War  is 
always  both  a test  of  unity  and  a stimulus  to  it,  and  this 
one  was  supremely  so.  Never  did  a war  so  demand  a 
united  nation.  The  tolerance  of  divergent  opinion  in  the 
Civil  War  seems  almost  incredible  in  contrast  with  the 
social  and  political  pressure  for  uniformity  in  the  recent 
struggle.  It  presented  the  demand  for  solidified  effort  in 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


21 


the  most  coercive  form,  perhaps,  in  which  it  has  ever 
been  experienced.  The  peril  of  a vast  military  domina- 
tion of  the  world,  a great  body  of  common  convictions, 
the  sense  of  a great  and,  as  it  was  believed,  a righteous 
cause  were  good  influences,  with  which  many  less  worthy 
motives  mingled,  to  lead  men  to  hold  their  differences  in 
abeyance  while  they  joined  in  sacrifice  and  loyalty.  Even 
though  much  that  seemed  to  be  unity  was  superficial  and 
unreal,  and  much  that  was  real  possessed  only  a tempo- 
rary vitality,  yet  beyond  all  doubt  the  experience  of  unity 
and  the  demand  for  it  were  in  war  time  unmistakable. 

The  Christian  churches,  which  already  had  more  deeply 
unifying  forces  binding  them  together  than  existed  in  any 
other  department  of  human  life,  and  which  represented 
the  great  fountains  of  moral  purpose  and  spiritual  ideal, 
were  at  once  brought  face  to  face  with  this  experience  and 
demand.  If  parties  and  classes  and  economic  interests 
could  unite,  even  at  sacrificial  cost,  what  forces — espe- 
cially what  kindred  spiritual  forces — could  refuse  to 
unite?  Surely  the  Church  of  Christ,  which  had  always 
declared  itself  to  be  essentially  one  and  which  by  its  very 
Gospel  was  a witness  to  the  oneness  of  humanity,  was 
challenged  more  than  all  other  agencies  to  united  action. 

What  agencies  did  the  churches  possess  for  such  action 
when  the  nation  was  drawn  into  the  war?  For  the  circu- 
lation of  the  Bible  they  had  the  American  Bible  Society, 
and  there  were  other  specialized  organizations  capable  of 
acting  within  their  own  limited  spheres.  For  the  new  bus- 
iness, however,  which  was  pressing  hard  upon  them  the 
available  agencies  of  the  churches  were  their  own  denom- 
inational boards  or  committees,  the  Young  Men’s  Chris- 
tian Association  and  the  Young  Women’s  Christian  Asso- 
ciation, and  the  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ 
in  America.  We  shall  understand  the  problem  of  Chris- 
tian unity  more  clearly  if  we  note  how  each  of  these 
agencies  sought  to  respond  to  the  demands  of  the  new 
situation. 


22 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


II.  The  Agencies  of  the  Churches  for  War-Time 
Service 

The  Young  Women’s  Christian  Association  promptly 
undertook  what  proved  to  be  an  invaluable  service.  Upon 
it  fell  the  responsibility  of  providing  wholesome  and  up- 
lifting influences  for  thousands  of  young  women  ex- 
posed to  new  dangers  in  communities  surrounding  the 
camps  or  in  the  midst  of  the  industrial  life  to  which  the 
exigencies  of  war  had  called  them.  Overseas  as  well  as 
at  home  ministry  to  women  war-workers  was  so  needed 
that  its  absence  would  have  been  a tremendous  loss. 
Even  within  the  training  camps  themselves  it  found 
a distinctive  piece  of  service  in  maintaining  hostess 
houses  for  women  visitors  and  their  soldier  friends. 
Problems  as  to  the  sort  of  amusements  to  be  sanctioned 
and  as  to  the  forms  of  direct  religious  service  to  be  pro- 
vided arose  in  connection  with  its  functioning  in  these 
ways  as  an  agency  of  united  effort  on  the  part  of  the 
churches,  but  its  sphere  of  work  was  so  clearly  defined 
that  there  were  no  serious  misunderstandings. 

The  work  of  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association, 
however,  was  both  so  extensive  and  so  interwoven  with 
that  of  the  other  agencies  of  the  churches  that  we  need  to 
consider  it  in  greater  detail.1  Even  before  the  United 
States  had  entered  the  conflict  the  Y M C A had  been 
rendering  a great  service  in  Europe  for  prisoners  of  war. 
This  work  was  both  in  itself  a splendid  enterprise  and 
also  a training  that  fitted  it  to  give  itself  to  the  nation 
for  service  in  the  army  in  the  name  of  the  Church  with- 
out a moment’s  delay  after  our  declaration  of  war. 

The  entrance  of  the  United  States  into  the  conflict 
showed  the  churches  what  an  indispensable  and  effective 

T'or  a fuller  discussion  of  this  subject,  see  the  Report  of  the 
Commission  on  the  Relation  of  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Asso- 
ciation to  the  Churches,  submitted  to  the  Fortieth  International 
Convention  of  the  Associations  at  Detroit,  November  19-23,  1919. 
The  material  here  presented  concerning  the  Association  is  in  part 
a condensed  statement  of  sections  of  that  report. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


23 


agency  for  service  they  possessed  in  the  Young  Men’s 
Christian  Association.  Without  it  they  would  have  had 
no  instrumentality  for  offering  a united  and  adequate  so- 
cial and  religious  ministry  adapted  to  the  unprecedented 
necessities  of  the  hour.  The  “huts”  in  every  camp  and 
every  section  of  the  army  afforded  centers  of  wholesome 
influences  whose  value  cannot  be  exaggerated.  The  Asso- 
ciation. with  the  specialized  experience,  organization, 
equipment,  and  resources  which  the  churches  possessed 
in  it,  was  ready  at  once  to  offer  to  the  Government  a min- 
istry whose  absence,  as  we  now  look  back,  would  have 
been  an  immeasurable  calamity.  It  was  a courageous 
offer.  The  magnitude  and  the  difficulty  of  what  was  in- 
volved no  one  realized.  As  Bishop  Brent  writes:  “The 
service  rendered  by  the  Y M C A in  the  army  and  navy 
was  one  of  the  most  daring  adventures  that  any  society 
ever  undertook.  The  exact  degree  of  success  it  would 
be  difficult  to  state,  but  this  at  least  can  be  said,  that  con- 
ditions being  what  they  were  the  work  in  the  A.  E.  F. 
was  indispensable.” 

The  work  in  the  United  States  was  an  even  greater 
work  and  it  was  equally  indispensable.  The  Association, 
in  fact,  undertook  a complete  program  of  physical,  recrea- 
tional, educational,  and  religious  service.  Its  secretaries 
aimed  not  only  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  men  for  a normal 
social  life  but  also  to  carry  on  distinctly  religious  efforts, 
including  Bible  study,  personal  work,  and  popular  reli- 
gious meetings.  This  work  the  churches  generally  recog- 
nized as  being  undertaken  in  their  behalf.  Most  of  them 
-cooperated  in  it  heartily,  not  only  in  financial  support  but 
by  generously  furnishing  their  clergymen  for  its  serv- 
ice. The  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches,  in  special  ses- 
sion at  Washington,  May  8 and  9,  1917,  declared:  “The 
churches  should  cordially  sustain  and  reenforce  the  work 
of  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association,  which  is  an 
especially  equipped  and  well-tried  arm  of  the  Church  for 
ministering  to  men  in  the  camp.”  And  the  General  War- 


24 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Time  Commission  of  the  Churches  recognized  “with 
grateful  appreciation  the  varied,  extensive,  and  indis- 
pensable service  rendered  to  the  American  soldiers  and 
sailors  at  home  and  overseas  by  those  trusted  auxiliary 
agencies  of  our  churches,  the  Young  Men’s  Christian 
Association  and  the  Young  Women’s  Christian  Asso- 
ciation.” 

But  while  cordially  recognizing  the  service  rendered, 
the  churches  felt  for  various  reasons  that  there  were  func- 
tions which  they  were  called  to  discharge  which  lay  be- 
yond the  province  of  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Associa- 
tion. The  Christian  soldiers  must  have  the  sacraments 
and  provision  for  church  worship.  The  churches  must 
keep  in  touch  with  their  children  in  the  Church’s  own 
name  and  character.  It  was  true  that  this  was,  in  part, 
the  business  of  the  chaplains,  but  it  could  almost  be  said 
that  at  the  outset  there  were  no  chaplains.  The  churches 
realized  that  they  must  organize  their  influence  for  the 
double  purpose  of  securing  proper  chaplains  and  of  pro- 
viding substitutes  for  them  until  they  were  secured.  They 
believed  also  that  even  when  the  regular  quota  of  chap- 
lains had  been  provided  there  would  be  room  for  all  that 
the  churches  could  contribute  in  the  way  of  voluntary 
chaplains  and  camp  pastors  to  supplement  the  moral  and 
religious  forces  in  the  camps.  And  they  felt  that  in  such 
an  emergency  as  had  arisen  the  different  communions 
could  not  delegate  their  own  duties  to  anyone,  but  must 
provide  some  denominational  instrumentality  of  action. 
If  each  denomination  did  not  have  some  real  work  to  do 
now,  what  warrant  was  there  for  its  existence  at  all? 

No  sooner,  therefore,  had  the  United  States  been  drawn 
into  active  participation  in  the  war  than  the  various  de- 
nominations began  to  seek  some  corporate  denominational 
expression  of  their  sense  of  duty.  In  many  cases,  no 
doubt,  this  effort  was  spontaneous  and  instinctive  rather 
than  reasoned  and  deliberate.  It  was  a wholesome  sign 
of  vitality  and  alert  power.  It  was,  in  general,  animated 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


25 


not  by  a sectarian  or  divisive  or  proselytizing  spirit,  but 
by  a sense  of  responsibility  and  a genuine  desire  for 
service.  There  was  the  need  of  following  with  solicitude 
and  care  the  young  men  whom  the  nation  was  calling  out 
from  their  church  homes.  There  was  the  task  of  securing 
chaplains  and  sustaining  them.  There  were  the  home  com- 
munities to  be  cheered  and  steadied.  There  were  the 
camp  neighborhoods  to  be  guarded  and  purged  of  the 
evils  which  have  ever  sought,  in  war  and  peace,  to  prey 
upon  young  manhood.  There  was  the  need  of  keeping 
the  moral  ideals  of  the  war  clear  and  pure  and,  if  it  might 
be,  Christian.  The  nation  and  the  world  were  in  need  of 
all  the  educational  service  and  the  spiritual  illumination 
and  strengthening  which  the  churches  could  possibly 
supply. 

The  work  which  the  commissions  did  constituted  a 
great  ministry  to  the  higher  interests  of  the  nation.  They 
related  each  local  church  and  each  denomination  as  a 
whole  to  the  moral  and  religious  service  of  the  country, 
so  that  every  group  felt  its  conscious  relationship  to  the 
task  which  fell  to  the  Christian  Church.  They  thus 
opened  a way  for  the  enlistment  of  every  individual  in 
the  religious  work  of  the  war  time.  They  supplied  the 
chaplains  for  the  armies,  and  also  the  great  company  of 
camp  pastors  and  voluntary  religious  workers,  who  did 
so  much  direct  pastoral  work  in  the  camps  and  the  camp 
communities.  They  furnished  church  worship  and  the 
sacraments,  often  in  the  Y M C A buildings  cordially 
opened  to  their  use.  They  supported  the  Red  Cross,  the 
Y M C A and  the  YWCA.  They  moulded  the  moral 
tone,  the  devotion,  the  unselfishness,  the  fortitude,  and 
the  faith  of  the  nation. 

It  was  interesting  to  observe  the  methods  of  the  differ- 
ent denominations  as  they  dealt  with  this  situation.  In 
the  case  of  those  which  have  annual  official  meetings  and 
which  met  in  the  spring  immediately  following  our  coun- 
try’s entrance  into  the  war  the  problem  was  simple.  The 


26 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


great  assemblies  set  up  at  once  denominational  war  com- 
missions, authorized  to  act  in  the  denominational  name. 
Where  there  were  no  such  meetings  various  plans  were 
used.  And  the  emergency  proved  a sufficient  test.  It 
was  found  that  neither  the  Methodist  nor  the  Episcopal 
Church,  which  by  reason  of  their  episcopal  organization 
have  been  regarded  as  especially  efficient  administratively, 
was  so  constituted  as  to  cope  readily  with  the  difficulty. 
By  a stretch  of  his  powers  the  presiding  bishop  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  authorized  Bishop  Lawrence 
to  take  action  and  a very  effective,  but  somewhat  ultra- 
vires,  war-time  organization  was  set  up.  In  the  Method- 
ist Church  the  responsibilities  of  the  emergency  were  left 
to  the  Board  of  Home  Missions,  until  the  acute  pressure 
of  the  war  experience  itself  led  the  Bishops  to  develop 
supplementary  agencies.2 

One  of  the  most  striking  things  about  these  denomina- 
tional commissions  was  that  their  organization,  point  of 
view,  and  lines  of  action  bore  testimony  to  the  underly- 
ing community  of  view  and  feeling  in  the  American 
churches.  No  other  institutions  in  America  acted  with 
more  identity  of  mind  and  spirit.  They  set  themselves 
to  almost  identical  forms  of  service.  There  were  many 
obvious  differences,  but  they  were  as  nothing  in  com- 
parison with  the  significant  evidence  of  the  substantial 
unity  of  mind  and  temper  characteristic  of  our  churches. 
There  were  a few  which  believed  that  they  were  partic- 
ularistic and  different,  but  the  interesting  fact,  almost 
the  amusing  fact,  was  the  similarity  of  spirit  and  ideal. 
Actions  spoke  louder  than  words.  Our  American 

2The  nature  and  functions  and  activities  of  all  the  denomina- 
tional war  commissions  are  fully  set  forth  in  one  of  the  reports 
of  the  General  War-Time  Commission  of  the  Churches,  entitled 
“War-Time  Agencies  of  the  Churches,”  which  can  be  secured 
from  the  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America. 
That  volume  will  repay  careful  study  as  an  exhibit  of  the  denom- 
inational conscience  responding  to  the  pressure  of  a great  duty, 
and  as  an  illustration  of  the  modes  of  action  and  types  of  life 
of  our  denominational  personalities, 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION  2 7 

churches  revealed  their  unity  of  character  as  a present 
reality. 

III.  The  Problem  of  Unity  Which  Emerged 

At  the  same  time  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  situation 
created  by  the  denominational  war  commissions  brought 
with  it  grave  dangers — the  dangers  of  overlapping  and 
collision,  of  divided  counsel  and  divided  influence,  of 
separate  and  mutually  weakening  representations  to  the 
Government,  of  the  loss  of  the  power  of  united  appeal  to 
the  nation  both  for  support  and  for  action,  of  missing 
great  opportunities  which  required,  if  they  were  to  be 
grasped,  a unity  of  effort  which  the  separate  organizations 
could  not  supply.  The  churches  enjoyed  the  advantages 
of  the  widely  distributed  authority  and  administration. 
They  lacked  the  power  of  united  and  coherent  action.  The 
long  delay  in  securing  legislation  concerning  chaplains 
and  the  failure  to  seize  more  quickly  the  opportunity  for 
life  enlistment  of  the  soldiers  and  sailors  in  the  service 
of  the  Church  were  outstanding  illustrations  of  the  utter 
inadequacy  of  denominational  action  alone.  It  was  obvi- 
ously impossible  for  the  Government  to  deal  with  the 
denominations  as  separate  and  unrelated  units.  At  the 
outset  the  Food  Administration,  desiring  to  secure  the 
cooperation  of  the  churches  in  conservation,  tried  to  get 
in  touch  with  them  one  by  one.  With  the  multiplicity  of 
religious  bodies  the  task  was  hopeless.  It  was  equally 
out  of  the  question  for  the  churches  to  denominational- 
ize  the  appeal  to  men  in  the  army  for  Christian  life  serv- 
ice. If  ever  our  youth  were  ripe  for  some  great  and 
heroic  call,  they  were  ripe  for  it  then.  They  had  heard 
the  united  voice  of  their  country  speaking  and  they  replied 
to  that  united  voice.  If  the  Church  wanted  those  lads 
for  Christian  service,  it  was  necessary  to  approach  them 
with  one  heart  and  one  appeal. 

Not  only  the  relation  of  the  denominations  to  their 
common  war-time  tasks  but  also  the  relation  of  the  Chris- 


28 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


tian  Associations  and  the  churches  to  each  other  pre- 
sented a problem  of  alarming  proportions.  Here  was  the 
Y M C A on  the  one  hand,  acting  in  the  name  of  the 
Church  and  drawing  upon  the  Church  for  resources  both 
of  workers  and  money,  yet  entirely  apart  from  ecclesi- 
astical direction  or  control.  On  the  other  hand  the 
churches,  through  their  own  commissions,  were  carry- 
ing on  a work  which  was  in  many  respects  similar  to 
that  which  the  Associations  were  doing.  In  the  field  of 
distinctly  religious  work  both  were  engaged.  However 
defined  and  delimited  their  respective  tasks  might  be,  it 
was  inevitable  that  at  least  in  many  local  cases  friction 
should  arise.  The  problem  of  unity  that  emerged  was 
clearly  a serious  one.  And  what  would  in  any  case  have 
been  a problem  of  large  proportions  became  even  more 
insistent,  because  so  much  of  the  war-time  work  of  the 
churches  demanded  almost  constant  contacts  with  the 
Government  and  its  various  official  or  semi-official  agen- 
cies, to  which  there  had  to  be  a united  approach  or 
practically  none  at  all.  With  the  War  Department,  the 
Navy  Department,  the  Commission  on  Training  Camp 
Activities,  the  Food  Administration,  the  Red  Cross,  the 
U.  S.  Employment  Service,  the  Department  of  Public 
Health,  the  War  Camp  Community  Service,  and  still  other 
bodies  important  relationships  had  to  be  maintained. 

It  was  in  part  because  these  dangers  were  foreseen, 
but  still  more  in  response  to  the  impulse  to  unity  to  which 
we  have  already  referred,  that  early  in  the  war  the  Gen- 
eral War-Time  Commission  of  the  Churches  was  called 
into  existence  by  the  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of 
Christ  in  America.  At  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  the 
Federal  Council  was  the  one  interdenominational  agency 
in  existence  directly  representing  the  churches  of  the 
United  States.  As  soon  as  the  war  came  it  called  a special 
meeting  at  Washington,  to  which  were  invited  leading 
representatives  of  the  denominations  and  other  Christian 
agencies.  This  meeting  took  steps  for  dealing  with  the 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


29 


questions  of  the  chaplains  and  securing  as  much  united 
action  in  other  war  service  as  possible.  During  the  period 
before  the  General  War-Time  Commission  was  organ- 
ized the  Federal  Council  itself  carried  on  many  important 
war-time  activities.  It  secured  new  chaplains  with  high 
qualifications  and  initiated  legislation  for  an  increased 
number.  It  investigated  the  conditions  in  the  training 
camps,  cooperated  with  the  Red  Cross  and  the  Food 
Administration,  helped  to  unify  the  work  of  the  local 
churches  in  some  of  the  camp  communities,  and  in  other 
ways  showed  how  useful  to  the  Church  a permanent  and 
flexible  interdenominational  agency  may  be. 

In  the  fall  of  1917  the  General  War-Time  Commission 
was  organized  and  given  a free  hand  by  the  Federal  Coun- 
cil to  act  for  the  American  churches  as  a central  agency. 
Its  organization  was  described  as  follows,  in  an  official 
statement,  formally  adopted  'by  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee : 

“The  General  War-Time  Commission  of  the  Churches 
is  a body  of  one  hundred  persons  chosen  from  the  dif- 
ferent religious  agencies  which  are  dealing  in  direct  and 
responsible  ways  with  new  problems  which  the  war  has 
raised. 

“It  had  its  inception  at  a meeting  of  the  Federal  Council 
at  Washington  on  May  8 and  9,  1917.  The  discussion 
at  that  meeting  developed  the  fact  that  some  representa- 
tive national  body  would  be  needed  to  act  on  behalf  of 
the  churches  in  their  effort  to  deal  with  the  new  prob- 
lems raised  by  the  war ; and  the  Administrative  Commit- 
tee was  authorized  to  take  the  necessary  steps  to  bring 
this  about.” 

In  the  same  statement  the  constitution  of  the  Commis- 
sion and  its  relation  to  other  agencies  were  thus  defined: 

“The  Commission  is  made  up  of  members  of  the  de- 
nominational war  commissions  and  other  denominational 
war  service  bodies,  of  interdenominational  agencies  like 
the  War  Work  Councils  of  the  Young  Men’s  Christian 
Association  and  the  Young  Women’s  Christian  Associa- 


30 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


tion,  the  National  Sunday-School  War  Council,  the  or- 
ganization of  Young  People’s  Societies,  the  American 
Bible  Society,  and  the  commissions  and  committees  of  the 
Federal  Council.  Its  executive  committee  includes  mem- 
bers of  these  various  bodies  and  agencies,  and  its  advi- 
sory council  consists  of  the  chairmen  or  secretaries  of 
the  larger  denominational  war  commissions.  It  is  cooper- 
ating with  the  War  Commission  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  and  with  the  agencies  of  our  Jewish  fellow-citi- 
zens in  matters  of  common  concern,  such  as  securing  the 
appointment  of  an  adequate  number  of  chaplains  and 
improving  moral  conditions  at  home  and  abroad.  With 
the  permanent  commissions  of  the  Federal  Council  its 
relations  are  necessarily  close  and  intimate  and  in  all 
that  concerns  war  work  the  officers  and  the  commissions 
of  the  Council  and  the  General  War-Time  Commission 
are  working  together.” 

The  purposes  of  the  Commission  were  defined  at  its 
first  meeting  as  follows : 

“i.  To  coordinate  existing  and  proposed  activities  and 
to  bring  them  into  intelligent  and  sympathetic  relation- 
ship so  as  to  avoid  all  waste  and  friction  and  to  promote 
efficiency. 

“2.  To  suggest  to  the  proper  agency  or  agencies  any 
further  work  called  for  and  not  being  done. 

“3.  To  provide  for  or  perform  such  work  as  can  best 
be  done  in  a cooperative  way. 

“4.  To  furnish  means  of  common  and  united  expres- 
sion when  such  is  desired ; and,  finally, 

“5.  To  provide  a body  which  would  be  prepared  to 
deal  in  a spirit  of  cooperation  with  the  new  problems  of 
reconstruction  which  may  have  to  be  faced  after  the  war.” 

In  the  organization  of  the  Executive  Committee  and 
of  the  committees  appointed  by  it  the  controlling  prin- 
ciple was  to  build  up  the  membership  out  of  the  respon- 
sible executives  of  the  existing  war-time  agencies.  Meet- 
ing every  fortnight,  it  served  to  bring  together  in  intimate 
contact  and  regular  conference  the  accredited  represen- 
tatives both  of  the  denominational  commissions  and  of 
other  organizations  like  the  Y M C A.  Its  members  were, 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


3i 


in  effect,  liaison  officers  bringing  the  various  agencies  into 
cooperative  relationships  in  the  formulation  of  policies 
and  programs  and  in  carrying  out  such  as  could  best  be 
executed  by  a common  agency.  The  importance  of  this 
principle  of  organization  in  securing  confidence  and 
hearty  denominational  support  it  is  difficult  to  over- 
emphasize. 

Setting  out  with  such  aims  and  with  such  an  organiza- 
tion, what  did  the  General  War-Time  Commission  of  the 
Churches  actually  achieve? 

In  the  first  place,  it  provided  a needed  clearing-house  of 
information  for  the  many  organizations  engaged  in  war- 
time service.  Various  agencies  were  studying  certain 
parts  of  the  new  field  of  work  from  the  standpoint  of 
their  own  particular  interests.  None  was  studying  the 
field  as  a whole.  Through  a series  of  surveys  the  Com- 
mission secured,  and  made  available  for  all,  information 
concerning  needs  and  opportunities  for  religious  work  in 
the  camps.  Through  a painstaking  first-hand  investiga- 
tion it  ascertained  the  special  needs  of  Negro  troops  and 
brought  them  home  to  the  various  religious  and  welfare 
organizations.  A special  inquiry  was  made  into  the  situ- 
ation in  army  hospitals,  which  influenced  the  appointment 
of  both  regular  and  voluntary  chaplains  to  deal  with  an 
urgent  problem.  The  Commission  kept  in  touch  with  the 
changing  personnel  of  chaplains,  camp  pastors,  Y M C A 
secretaries,  and  the  workers  in  the  various  posts,  and  sup- 
plied the  information  to  the  several  organizations  for  use 
in  their  dealing  with  one  another.  It  was  thus  able  to 
suggest  to  the  proper  agency  needs  still  unmet  and  to 
make  it  possible  for  each  organization  to  see  its  own  work 
in  relation  to  the  work  of  other  agencies  and  to  the  task 
as  a whole. 

In  the  second  place,  the  commission  established  more 
correlated  effort  and  generous  cooperation  among  the  ex- 
isting agencies.  Through  the  meetings  of  the  Executive 
Committee  better  mutual  understanding  of  plans  and  pur- 


32 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


poses  was  secured.  In  its  membership  were  included  rep- 
resentatives even  of  some  churches  which  had  not  been 
associated  with  the  Federal  Council,  such  as  the  Southern 
Baptists  and  some  of  the  Lutheran  bodies.  The  work  of 
the  denominational  camp  pastors  was  unified  to  a con- 
siderable degree  by  the  joint  formulation  of  a common 
program  and  by  a series  of  conferences  of  camp  pastors 
held  in  different  sections  of  the  country.  The  Y M C A 
and  the  churches  came  to  a better  understanding  through 
a special  committee  of  conference  between  the  Associa- 
tion and  the  churches.  The  relations  of  the  churches  to 
such  welfare  agencies  as  the  War  Camp  Community 
Services  were  clarified  by  occasional  conferences  for  this 
purpose.  With  the  National  Catholic  War  Council  and 
the  Jewish  Board  for  Welfare  Work  informal  coopera- 
tion was  secured  in  matters  affecting  the  moral  welfare 
of  the  army  and  navy.  Effective  cooperation  with  the 
Red  Cross  and  many  governmental  agencies  was  also 
made  possible. 

In  the  third  place,  the  Commission  afforded  an  agency 
of  united  expression  for  the  Protestant  churches.  In  its 
calls  to  prayer  and  in  its  frequent  emphasis  upon  the 
moral  aims  of  the  war,  the  Church  spoke  with  one  voice 
and  did  much  to  sustain  moral  idealism  and  deepen  the 
spirit  of  penitence  among  the  people.  In  its  appeal  for 
war-time  prohibition  the  sentiment  of  all  the  churches 
came  to  a needed  focus.  In  approach  to  the  Government 
in  behalf  of  needed  legislation  for  the  chaplains  it  brought 
the  total  influence  of  the  Church  to  bear. 

Finally,  the  Commission  functioned  as  a common 
agency  for  doing  certain  tasks  which  could  best  be  done 
by  the  Church  as  a whole.  It  secured  the  appointment 
of  about  fifteen  hundred  well  qualified  army  and  navy 
chaplains,  and  gave  them  the  united  support  of  the 
churches  in  the  endeavor  to  have  them  provided  with 
equipment,  organization,  and  rank  adequate  to  the  per- 
formance of  their  duties.  The  chaplains’  training  school 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


33 


was  established  by  the  Government  as  a result  of  the 
united  pressure  of  the  churches.  Interdenominational 
chapels  for  the  use  of  chaplains  and  camp  pastors  were 
erected  at  Camp  Upton  and  Camp  Dix.  The  problem  of 
the  religious  and  moral  welfare  of  the  workers  in  centers 
of  war  industry  was  tackled  by  a joint  committee  repre- 
senting the  Commission  and  the  Boards  of  Home  Mis- 
sions. Programs  for  war-time  service  by  local  churches 
were  formulated.  A campaign  for  recruiting  for  Christian 
life  service  among  the  men  in  military  service  was  inau- 
gurated by  a joint  committee  representing  the  Y M C A 
and  the  churches.  Through  cooperation  with  the  Gov- 
ernment’s educational  program  for  the  American  Expe- 
ditionary Force,  it  was  made  possible  for  theological 
students  to  begin  their  professional  training  while  still  in 
service.  An  interchange  of  service  between  the  ministers 
of  America  and  those  of  Great  Britain  and  other  Allied 
countries  was  arranged,  with  a view  to  welding  the  na- 
tions together  in  moral  and  religious  idealism.  A cooper- 
ative financial  campaign  in  behalf  of  the  war-time  work 
of  the  churches  was  inaugurated  and  carried  through. 

Serving  as  a clearing  house  of  information,  a coordi- 
nating agency,  a means  of  united  expression,  and  an  in- 
strument for  joint  administration,  the  General  War-Time 
Commission  of  the  Churches  enabled  the  churches  to 
present  a united  front  in  facing  new  problems  and  respon- 
sibilities. While  carrying  forward  their  several  denom- 
inational activities  separately,  the  churches  associated  in 
this  central  Commission  worked  together  effectively  in  a 
spirit  of  helpful  and  sympathetic  cooperation,  avoiding 
competition  and  duplication  of  effort  in  the  full  knowl- 
edge of  what  others  were  doing.  It  is  not  too  much  to 
say  that  the  Commission  succeeded  in  large  measure  in 
carrying  out  the  purpose  which  it  set  before  itself  when 
it  declared  at  its  first  meeting : 

“The  Commission  will  do  its  work  in  close  cooperation 
with  the  existing  agencies  and  commissions  or  other  war 


34 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


agencies  in  the  various  communions,  and  with  the  inter- 
denominational agencies  already  at  work.  It  will  seek  to 
serve  them  all  as  a clearing  house  of  information  and  as 
an  agency  of  sympathetic  coordination.  Its  purpose  is 
not  to  replace  or  duplicate,  much  less  to  check  any  activ- 
ity directed  toward  dealing  with  the  task  which  is  too 
great  for  all  the  forces  which  can  be  brought  to  bear 
upon  it.  Its  purpose  is  to  support  and  strengthen  all  such 
influences  in  the  fullest  measure,  to  the  end  that  the 
churches  may  be  able  to  render  the  largest  service  to  the 
young  men  of  the  nation  and  to  the  nation  itself  in  this 
great  and  critical  time.” 

IV.  The  Problems  of  Unity  Which  Remain  for 
the  Future 

Without  some  such  agency  as  the  General  War-Time 
Commission  it  would  have  been  hopeless  to  expect  that 
friction,  duplication  of  effort,  and  confusion  could  have 
been  avoided.  We  have  seen  that  before  the  Commission 
was  organized,  lack  of  contact  with  one  another’s  plans 
and  points  of  view  had  given  rise  to  misunderstandings 
both  in  the  relation  of  the  denominations  to  one  another 
and  between  the  denominations  and  the  Y M C A.  It 
would  be  altogether  too  much  to  say  that  complete  co- 
ordination was  secured  even  after  a common  meeting 
ground  had  been  found  in  the  Commission.  Beyond 
question,  however,  long  steps  were  taken  in  this  direc- 
tion. 

The  experience  of  the  Commission  in  endeavoring  to 
secure  cooperation  among  the  war-time  agencies  brought 
certain  questions  clearly  to  light,  which  remain  perma- 
nently before  the  churches  after  the  crisis  of  the  war  has 
passed.  The  problems  involved  in  the  relation  of  the 
churches  to  the  Y M C A,  of  the  denominations  to  one 
another,  and  of  both  to  various  welfare  organizations, 
which  were  the  great  problems  during  the  war,  are  no 
less  serious  today.  What  light  does  the  war  experience 
shed  upon  these  problems  for  the  future? 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


35 


i.  The  Relation  between  the  Christian  Associations  and 
the  Churches 

Beyond  all  question  there  was  during  the  war  no  ade- 
quate provision  for  a proper  understanding  between  the 
Association  and  the  churches  in  the  framing  of  general 
policies  and  programs.  The  need  for  such  understand- 
ing arose  at  the  outset  of  the  work.  It  was  illustrated 
first  of  all  in  the  failure  of  the  Association  to  take 
into  account  the  regular  chaplains — the  representatives 
of  the  ministry  in  the  army,  appointed  to  their  service  by 
the  Government  itself.  Here  was  a permanent  agency  of 
the  churches  in  the  army  which  should  have  been  recog- 
nized by  the  Association.  But  as  a matter  of  fact  it  was 
a long  time  before  such  recognition  was  given  in  any 
adequate  form.  Again,  the  organization  of  the  Associa- 
tion made  no  clear  provision  for  the  definition  of  its 
relation  to  the  churches.  Its  War  Work  Council  con- 
sisted at  first  almost  wholly  of  laymen  chosen  by  the  In- 
ternational Committee  and  its  Executive  Committee  was 
confined  to  laymen.  It  became  necessary,  accordingly, 
to  provide  in  some  other  way  for  securing  the  counsel 
and  advice  of  the  clergy  of  the  churches  and  a Cooperat- 
ing Committee  of  the  Churches  was  established.  These 
representatives  of  the  ministry,  however,  were  named  not 
by  the  churches  but  by  the  Association.  Still  the  Com- 
mittee served  a very  useful  purpose  and  indeed  for  a 
short  time  it  filled  the  place  of  the  Religious  Work 
Bureau.  A further  point  of  contact  between  the  Asso- 
ciation and  the  churches  was  afforded  by  the  presence  of 
representatives  of  the  Association  on  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee of  the  General  War-Time  Commission  of  the 
Churches.  In  these  ways  it  became  possible  to  deal  with 
the  acute  problems  of  the  war  time  and  a situation 
was  worked  through  whose  delicacy  and  difficulty  are 
known  to  but  few.  But  the  central  fact  is  that  personal 
friendships  and  voluntary  arrangements  had  to  bear  the 


36 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


burden  of  the  heaviest  task  we  have  ever  met  in  the  mat- 
ter of  the  relations  of  the  Association  and  the  Church. 

Under  the  procedure  which  was  followed  by  the  Asso- 
ciation, based  on  no  definite  understanding  with  the 
churches  and  making  no  provision  for  any  direct  par- 
ticipation of  the  churches  in  the  control  of  the  Asso- 
ciation, projects  were  put  forth  largely  in  the  name  of 
the  churches  but  over  which  the  churches  had  no  control. 
The  church  workers  appointed  by  the  denominational 
commissions  had  no  regular  relation  to  the  Association, 
but  were  in  many  cases  in  the  camps  only  by  its  suffer- 
ance or  courtesy.  The  Y M C A was  definitely  accred- 
ited by  the  Government  but  the  effect  of  the  course  which 
it  pursued  was,  in  large  measure,  to  leave  the  Church 
without  the  means  of  making  a contribution  to  the  sol- 
diers and  sailors  in  ways  that  the  latter  recognized  as 
coming  directly  from  the  churches. 

Clearly  the  relation  of  the  Association  to  the  churches 
remains  still  to  be  solved.  If  it  is  to  be  recognized  as  a 
direct  agency  of  the  churches,  some  way  must  be  found 
whereby  the  churches  as  such  may  be  democratically  and 
directly  represented  in  connection  with  the  governing 
bodies  of  the  Association.  If  it  is  to  be  a voluntary 
agency,  measures  must  be  taken  for  establishing  chan- 
nels of  constant  consultation  between  it  and  the  denom- 
inations as  to  its  general  policies  and  plans.  In  any 
case,  the  relation  must  be  more  clearly  understood.  And 
although  in  the  case  of  the  Young  Women’s  Christian 
Association  the  question  did  not  come  to  so  sharp  a focus 
in  the  war,  the  same  thing  is  true.  This  question  of  the 
cooperation  between  the  Associations  and  the  churches 
is  so  important  that  it  will  be  considered  in  detail  in  a 
later  section  of  this  report. 

2.  The  Relation*of  the  Denominations  to  One  Another 

Even  more  urgent  than  the  problem  of  the  relation  of 
the  Associations  and  the  churches  is  that  of  the  relation 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


37 


of  the  churches  to  one  another.  Here  also  certain  facts 
stand  out  that  are  of  large  significance  today.  It  is  clear 
that  in  the  war  the  churches  had  a task  bigger  than  all 
of  them  together  could  do,  parts  of  which  were  indivis- 
ible. There  were  duties  which  could  not  be  taken  up  by 
any  group  in  isolation.  But  whatever  necessity  there  was 
during  the  time  of  war  for  helping  one  another  by  mutual 
encouragement  and  conference  and  united  action,  we  have 
today  under  circumstances  no  less  trying  and  exacting. 
What  lessons,  then,  have  we  to  learn  from  the  war  ex- 
perience for  the  future? 

We  have  learned,  in  the  first  place,  beyond  any  ques- 
tion that  we  need  a collective  guidance.  No  one  of  us 
has  wisdom  enough  to  handle  even  his  own  duty  in  isola- 
tion. There  are  problems  rooted  in  all  the  fiber  of 
humanity  that  cannot  be  dealt  with  by  segments  of 
humanity  or  of  the  Church.  We  require  all  the  wisdom 
and  trusted  guidance  that  the  churches  together  can 
possibly  supply.  And  we  must  have  such  collective  guid- 
ance while  our  programs  are  in  the  making,  rather  than 
in  the  days  of  hardened  completion.  Then  the  forces 
that  thus  come  together  become  more  in  their  aggregate 
than  the  total  of  those  separate  forces  added  together. 
Such  liaison  was  the  essential  condition  of  efficiency  in 
every  department  of  our  national  and  international  ex- 
perience during  the  war.  We  can  write  the  history  of 
those  years  as  the  effort  of  men  to  achieve  this  kind  of 
correlation,  to  secure  interchange  of  knowledge,  of  pur- 
pose, and  of  plan  among  all  the  agencies  at  work.  The 
progress  made  by  the  churches  in  securing  this  kind  of 
interrelationship  during  the  war  must  be  completed  by 
some  permanent  provision,  either  through  existing  agen- 
cies or  through  some  new  machinery  for  a full  correla- 
tion of  knowledge  and  plan  among  the  different  denomi- 
nations and  the  several  interdenominational  agencies. 

We  need,  in  the  second  place,  not  only  a collective 
guidance  in  planning,  but  also  coordination  in  the  execu- 


38 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


tion  of  the  plans.  All  agencies  must  see  their  work  as 
elements  in  a larger  whole  and  carry  it  on  accordingly. 
When  this  is  the  case  it  will  be  found  that  some  things 
which  have  been  done  separately  by  various  agencies  can 
be  done  more  effectively  by  one.  The  General  War-Time 
Commission  began  with  the  primary  purpose  of  affording 
a common  meeting  ground  for  consideration  of  plans, 
but  it  soon  became  evident  that  there  were  things  which 
the  churches  could  do  together  better  than  individually. 
In  any  case,  there  must  be  a full  coordination  of  the 
forces  which  aim  at  common  ends  and  of  programs  which 
cover  common  ground.  To  realize  all  this  more  clearly 
has  been  a great  gain.  It  can  never  be  an  open  question 
again  as  to  whether  the  Federal  Council,  or  something 
that  more  fully  fills  that  ground,  is  an  indispensable 
necessity.  It  is  settled  once  and  forever  by  the  experience 
through  which  we  went  in  the  war  that  we  must  have  an 
effective  agency  of  interdenominational  cooperation. 

Beyond  the  need  for  collective  guidance  in  planning 
and  coordinated  execution  of  the  plans  there  is,  in  the 
third  place,  the  need  for  a united  interpretation  to  the 
world  of  what  the  churches  aim  to  do  and  are  actually 
achieving.  In  such  a crisis  as  the  war  the  churches  could 
be  really  heard  only  if  they  spoke  with  one  voice.  This 
is  no  less  true  today.  They  have  a common  message  to 
the  world.  Again  and  again  that  message  needs  to  be 
interpreted  and  applied  to  contemporary  issues  that  can 
be  solved  aright  only  as  they  are  solved  in  the  light  of 
the  Christian  Gospel.  The  necessity  of  providing  to- 
gether for  such  interpretative  publicity  as  to  the  work  of 
the  Church  and  the  bearing  of  Christianity  on  the  life 
of  the  day  is  one  of  the  clearest  lessons  of  the  war. 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  experience  of  the  war  has 
more  fully  revealed  to  the  churches  the  necessity  of 
definite  denominational  responsibility  for  their  coopera- 
tive action.  This  has  not  been  any  new  discovery,  only 
a larger  application  of  what  had  already  been  ascertained 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


39 


and  was  already  existent  in  some  measure  within  the 
Federal  Council.  In  the  commissions  of  the  Federal 
Council  there  had  been  two  types  of  associated  action.  In 
one  the  president  of  the  Council  selected  individuals  and 
brought  them  together  in  a commission  with  a wide  range 
of  action.  In  the  other  method  the  aim  was  to  correlate 
the  organic  activities  of  the  denominations.  The  latter 
method  did  not  afford  the  same  freedom,  but  it  did  give  a 
larger  weight  of  authority  and  responsibility.  The  Gen- 
eral War-Time  Commission  of  the  Churches,  as  we  have 
already  pointed  out,  made  use  of  this  second  method, 
bringing  together  the  existing  war-time  activities  of 
denominations.  Some  said  that  in  their  war  work  the 
churches  were  making  a mistake  in  this  regard  and  empha- 
sizing denominationalism.  But  there  has  been  during  the 
last  few  years  a great  growth  of  the  sense  of  denomina- 
tional personality  and  we  do  not  want  to  break  that  down 
unless  there  is  something  better  to  take  its  place.  To  confine 
the  cooperative  endeavor  of  the  churches  chiefly  to  bring- 
ing together  in  an  effective  way  the  really  responsible 
denominational  agencies  may  doubtless  seem  to  limit  free- 
dom and  prevent  progress.  That  method  may,  indeed, 
hold  back  some  of  the  more  far-visioned  and  enthusiastic 
men,  but  it  has  its  compensation  in  the  greater  spirit  of 
unity  that  accompanies  advance.  It  is  essential  that  we 
keep  together  the  men  who  represent  the  organic  respon- 
sibility of  the  different  communions  and  seek  to  get 
ahead  by  mutual  understanding  and  interchange.  It  will 
be  a great  pity  if  as  we  go  forward  we  do  not  conserve 
all  the  gains  of  the  past,  even  if  it  makes  some  of  us  impa- 
tient because  the  progress  is  not  so  rapid  as  it  might  be  if 
we  could  detach  ourselves  from  these  official  relation- 
ships. 

In  the  fifth  place,  we  have  learned  something  about 
the  spirit  and  the  attitude  that  are  indispensable  to  coop- 
eration. We  have  seen  clearly  that  denominational  coor- 
dination cannot  be  secured  simply  by  readjustments  of 


40 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


constitutional  relationships,  or  by  theoretical  allotments 
of  power  and  authority.  These  have  their  place.  But 
this  problem  which  the  churches  are  facing  is  a problem 
of  service  and  personal  relationships.  The  only  kind  of 
instrumentality  that  will  adequately  meet  this  need  and 
fill  this  field  must  be  one  that  is  marked  by  institutional 
disinterestedness.  This  was  a large  factor  in  securing 
hearty  cooperation  in  the  General  War-Time  Commis- 
sion. It  was  generally  recognized  that  it  existed  solely 
to  serve  the  churches.  The  important  thing  is  that  any 
agency  that  sets  out  to  work  for  the  churches  should  lose 
its  life  in  the  doing  of  it,  seeking  no  honor  whatever  of 
its  own.  Some  of  our  problems  spring  from  our  forget- 
ting that.  We  have  learned  also  through  the  war  that 
in  this  interdenominational  cooperation  the  churches  must 
frankly  face  and  solve  the  problem  of  supplying  a leader- 
ship that  is  neither  too  strong  nor  too  weak.  We  cannot 
have  a successful  leadership  if  it  is  so  strong  that  it  breaks 
away  from  its  following  and  coerces  it,  nor,  on  the  other 
hand,  if  it  is  lacking  in  courage.  It  is  not  easy  to  know 
just  where  the  line  should  be  drawn.  The  problem  of 
leadership  is  difficult  because  it  is  concerned  with  the 
fundamentals,  because  our  problem  is  not  one  of  me- 
chanics, nor  of  external  adjustments,  but  the  hard  prob- 
lem of  love,  of  confidence,  of  the  freedom,  power,  and 
strength  that  invariably  go  with  life. 

We  have  seen,  too,  even  more  clearly  that  the  pathway 
of  cooperative  advance  lies  through  the  field  of  action 
and  embodied  service,  rather  than  through  the  field  of 
theoretical  discussion.  There  were  hosts  of  differences 
of  opinion  among  the  agencies  cooperating  in  the  war- 
time service  of  the  Church,  but  in  spite  of  them  the 
churches  were  conscious  that  they  were  one,  as  together 
they  faced  the  magnitude  and  urgency  of  their  tasks. 
The  power  of  embodied  undertakings  has  come  home 
to  us  in  a new  way,  so  that  we  know  that  we  deal  best 
with  our  problem  of  cooperation  as  we  objectify  our 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


4i 


ends,  and  set  before  men  tasks  to  be  done,  definite  goals 
actually  to  be  traveled  to  and  arrived  at. 

Here  we  find  ground  for  hope  as  we  look  ahead.  If 
unity  comes  through  common  service  our  opportunity  is 
before  us.  Now,  as  in  the  war,  great  tasks  confront  us, 
before  which  we  shall  be  relatively  impotent  if  we  cannot 
deal  with  them  in  cooperation.  We  have  still,  as  we  had 
then,  the  necessity  of  proper  relationships  with  agencies 
outside  our  churches — with  the  Jews  and  the  Roman 
Catholics,  with  the  Government,  with  great  welfare  agen- 
cies like  the  Red  Cross,  with  organizations  that  aim  to 
mould  public  opinion  along  lines  of  social  betterment. 
All  these  are  carrying  on  significant  work,  with  certain 
parts  of  which  the  churches  need  to  cooperate  heartily 
for  the  sake  of  their  own  goal.  But  this  they  cannot 
do  unless  they  can  act  together.  And  there  are  other  and 
greater  common  enterprises  within  the  Church.  The  prob- 
lem of  Christian  education,  the  solution  of  which  is  vital 
to  the  very  life  of  Christianity,  the  problem  of  Christian- 
izing all  our  social  and  industrial  relationships,  the  prob- 
lem of  adequately  enlisting  men  and  women  for  the  serv- 
ice of  the  Church,  the  problem  of  our  missionary  obliga- 
tion to  the  non-Christian  world  and  of  securing  a broth- 
erly spirit  among  the  nations — all  these  are  challenging 
us  to  a cooperative  advance,  because  we  shall  never  be 
able  to  solve  them  along  our  old  lines  of  division  and  sep- 
aration. They  are  indivisible  tasks,  and,  if  we  will  attack 
them  together,  afford  the  clearest  pathway  to  interdenom- 
inational unity. 

Finally,  and  most  important,  the  war  revealed  to  us 
how  great  a spirit  of  unity  we  already  possessed.  It  made 
it  clear  that  what  is  needed  is  not  so  much  to  create  a 
unity  as  to  provide  external  forms  for  the  expression  of 
the  inner  unity  that  we  already  have.  This  being  so,  we 
may  be  sure  that  the  movement  for  cooperation  and  union 
is  going  to  grow  year  by  year  with  increasing  power.  We 
may  make  mistakes.  It  is  conceivable  that  we  should 


42 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


make  such  colossal  mistakes  as  to  destroy  any  existing 
agencies  of  cooperation,  so  that  new  agencies  would  have 
to  be  set  up  in  their  stead,  but  as  sure  as  there  will  be  a 
sunrise  tomorrow  another  agency  would  be  set  up  in 
their  place,  because  we  are  in  a great  movement  from 
which  we  can  never  draw  out  or  be  drawn  back. 
The  only  question  we  face  today  is  whether  we  are  going 
to  be  courageous  enough,  disinterested  enough,  wise 
enough  to  discern  our  time  and  to  pass  into  this  time 
with  instrumentalities  really  adequate  for  the  tasks  that 
lie  ahead. 

It  is  in  the  light  of  the  challenging  demand  for  union 
that  the  war  brought  home  to  us  and  in  spite  of  the  in- 
creased incentives  to  it,  that  we  must  interpret  the 
intensification  of  denominational  consciousness  which  we 
have  witnessed  since  the  war.  The  reasons  for  this  are 
no  doubt  complex.  In  part,  it  seems  to  be  due  to  a dis- 
content with  the  undenominational  organizations  which 
operate  in  the  Church’s  name  but  which  are  not  re- 
sponsibly connected  with  the  churches  or  inspired 
with  the  full  consciousness  of  the  Church’s  life,  his- 
toric character,  and  spirit  of  worship.  In  part,  the 
intensified  denominational  activity  has  arisen  from  a con- 
viction that  in  churches  as  well  as  in  nations  autocracy 
and  colossal  waste  are  generally  characteristic  of  efforts 
on  a highly  centralized  scale,  and  that  democracy  and  effi- 
ciency call  for  a wider  distribution  of  authority  and 
action  by  smaller  units.  Is  not  denominationalism  after 
all,  men  ask,  more  economical  and  more  efficient  than  a 
centralized  organization  that  ignores  financial  frugality 
and  places  on  individuals  more  authority  than  men  can 
exercise  with  wisdom  and  real  power?  With  this  has 
gone  a distrust  of  super-leadership  and  a certain  justi- 
fiable hesitancy  in  entrusting  to  any  men  or  small  group 
of  men  the  great  power  that  goes  with  a united  body. 
There  has  been,  moreover,  a reaction  toward  freedom 
from  the  restraint  and  pressure  of  the  war.  In  churches 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


43 

as  well  as  states  centralizing  tendencies  have,  at  least  tem- 
porarily, relaxed. 

The  new  denominational  consciousness,  however,  has 
another  side.  It  rests  chiefly  upon  a growing  sense  of 
unity  and  corporate  responsibility  within  the  several  de- 
nominations. This  has  been  greatly  stimulated  by  the 
war.  Christians  whose  horizon  had  hitherto  been  bounded 
by  the  local  church,  or  by  the  missionary  outlook  in  the 
more  narrow  sense,  realized  far  more  clearly  that  they 
belonged  to  communions  with  nation-wide,  yes,  with  in- 
ternational, responsibilities.  In  part,  at  least,  as  a result 
of  the  war-time  activities  there  was  a heightened  sense  of 
denominational  responsibility  which  found  expression  in 
such  movements  as  the  Presbyterian  New  Era,  the  Bap- 
tist Victory  campaign,  and  other  forward  movements. 
In  the  case  of  one  great  family  of  churches,  the  Lutheran, 
organic  union  was  achieved  on  the  part  of  a number  of 
bodies,  and  for  the  first  time  in  their  history  nearly  1,000,- 
ooo  Lutherans  find  themselves  in  possession  of  an  agency 
for  common  action  and  for  common  expression. 

The  criticism  of  this  revived  denominational  conscious- 
ness as  if  it  were  a foe  to  Christian  unity,  is  therefore 
unjustified.  Only  those  groups  can  unite  effectively  which 
have  such  a sense  of  their  own  corporate  responsibility 
that  they  are  already  at  one  within  themselves.  But  this 
has  not  generally  been  the  case  with  the  individual  Chris- 
tian churches.  The  differences  which  express  themselves 
on  a large  scale  in  the  rivalry  between  denominations 
reappear  on  a smaller  scale  in  the  dissension  between 
parties  and  schools  of  thought  within  each  denomination. 
And  the  unwillingness  to  surrender  power  to  a central 
organization,  which  has  kept  the  individual  Protestant 
churches  apart  from  one  another,  has,  with  few  excep- 
tions, prevented  each  of  them  from  creating  within  itself 
a unified  agency  which  is  regarded  by  all  the  elements  in 
the  Church  as  having  the  right  to  speak  and  act  for  the 
whole.  Whatever;  therefore,  unites  Christians  within 


44 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


each  denomination  may  be  regarded  as  a necessary  step 
toward  that  larger  unity  which  unites  them  to  their  fellow- 
Christians  of  other  names.  So  the  new  denominational 
activity  is  not  to  be  thought  of  as  narrowly  sectarian. 
With  few  exceptions  it  is  more  brotherly  and  cooperative 
than  it  has  ever  been. 

What  is  the  actual  situation  today,  both  within  the  sev- 
eral denominations  and  in  the  interdenominational  field, 
and  what  is  the  pathway  to  fuller  unity,  we  shall  consider 
in  detail  in  the  following  chapters  of  this  report. 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION  IN  THE  DENOM- 
INATIONS 

Christian  unity — it  can  never  be  too  often  insisted — is 
no  less  a task  to  be  achieved  within  each  denomination 
itself  than  between  the  different  communions.  In  this 
chapter,  therefore,  the  attempt  is  made  to  analyze  the 
present  situation  in  the  various  denominations  with  re- 
gard to  progress  toward  further  unity,  the  discussion  in 
each  case  centering  chiefly  around  two  considerations: 

1.  What  is  the  degree  of  spiritual  unity  within  the  de- 
nomination itself  and  how  far  has  this  inner  unity  found 
expression  in  outer  organization?  Each  of  the  larger 
denominations  presents  such  a diversity  of  religious  tem- 
perament and  conviction  as  to  be  in  itself  almost  a 
microcosm  of  the  larger  Church  of  which  it  is  a part. 
If,  then,  we  can  really  discern  the  bond  of  union  among 
Christians  within  each  of  the  several  denominations,  we 
may  have  a valuable  clue  to  the  principle  on  which  a more 
inclusive  union  may  be  developed. 

2.  What  is  the  present  attitude  of  the  denominations 
toward  (a)  cooperation  and  (b)  union  with  other 
churches?  The  purpose  here  is  to  make  clearer  what 
steps  the  existing  mood  and  temper  of  the  denominations 
now  make  practicable. 

In  this  survey  space  forbids  a consideration  of  all  the 
denominations.  In  those,  however,  which  are  discussed 
it  is  believed  that  the  various  types  of  Protestant  Chris- 
tianity are  represented,  and  that  their  attitudes  may  be 
regarded  as  illustrative  of  other  bodies.1 

'In  dealing  with  the  several  denominations  the  authors,  of 
course,  are  not  speaking  in  any  official  capacity.  They  are  sim- 
ply interpreting  the  situation  as  they  personally  see  it  from  within 
their  own  churches. 


45 


46 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


I.  The  Congregational  Churches  and  Unity 

During  the  first  two  centuries  of  its  history  Congre- 
gationalism, like  most  other  Protestant  bodies,  was  not 
greatly  affected  by  any  of  the  influences  that  make  for 
church  unity.  In  so  far  as  it  entertained  the  thought  of 
unity,  there  was  the  vague  expectation  that  its  own  in- 
formal and  liberal  structure  might  win  general  accept- 
ance. In  the  phrase  of  some  of  its  later  leaders,  it  hoped 
to  be  “the  solvent  of  the  sects.”  It  was  suspicious  of 
organized  integration,  because  it  was  convinced  that  or- 
ganization had  always  stood  in  the  way  of  freedom. 

i.  The  Development  of  Unity  among  the  Congrega- 
tional Churches 

With  the  beginning  of  the  missionary  era,  a hundred 
years  ago,  the  various  forces  that  make  for  unity  began 
to  be  gradually  felt  in  its  life.  The  American  Board  of 
Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions  (1810),  the  Ameri- 
can Home  Missionary  Society  (1826),  and  the  American 
Missionary  Association  (1846),  did  not  represent  corpor- 
ate action  by  the  Congregational  Churches,  but  they  all 
sprang  from  Congregational  roots  and  were  predomi- 
nantly supported  by  Congregationalists.  It  never  seems, 
however,  to  have  occurred  to  their  founders  to  make  these 
organizations  sectarian.* 2 3 *  Coincident  with  the  thought  of 
their  projection  was  the  thought  of  their  inclusiveness. 
In  like  manner  the  “Plan  of  Union”  between  Congrega- 
tionalists and  Presbyterians,8  which  prevailed  for  several 
decades  about  the  middle  of  the  century,  was  an  expres- 
sion of  the  non-sectarian  spirit.  When  analyzed,  how- 
ever, these  and  like  undertakings  are  seen  to  be,  so  far  as 
Congregationalism  was  concerned,  not  deliberate  and  pos- 

3For  a fuller  account  of  the  inclusive  character  of  these  organ- 

izations, particularly  the  American  Board,  see  pages  290-295  of 
this  volume. 

3For  an  account  of  this  important  “Plan  of  Union”  see  pp.  285- 

289  of  this  volume. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


47 


itive  movements  toward  unity,  but  partly  the  result  of 
structural  weakness  and  partly  of  a general  sentiment  of 
good  will  toward  kindred  bodies.  It  was  needful  that  the 
development  of  events  should  teach  Congregationalism 
that  definite  inner  unity  must  precede  effective  outward 
cooperation.  Such  development  came  rapidly.  One  de- 
nomination after  another  withdrew  from  the  mission 
boards  named  above,  leaving  them  wholly  to  Congrega- 
tional support.  The  “Plan  of  Union”  proved  unsatisfac- 
tory to  both  parties  and  was  abandoned  by  mutual  con- 
sent. What  appeared  to  be  a promising  movement  toward 
union  dissolved  and  disappeared.  Its  vestigial  remains 
are  seen  in  the  word  “American”  still  used  by  two  of  the 
Boards  and  cherished  by  Congregationalists  as  an  earn- 
est of  the  day  of  union  still  to  appear. 

The  solidifying  of  the  structural  life  of  Congrega- 
tionalism began  with  the  Albany  Convention  of  1850. 
Up  to  that  time  it  had  had  no  national  voice  whatever. 
Its  common  tasks  had  been  initiated  and  conducted  by 
groups  of  individuals  or  semi-official  state  bodies.  At 
Albany  it  entered  into  a broader  consciousness  of  its 
responsibilities.  This  was  strengthened  by  the  calling 
of  a National  Council  in  1865  to  consider  post-war  prob- 
lems. Following  this  in  1871  there  was  organized, 
though  with  many  doubts,  a permanent  National  Coun- 
cil. Its  authority  was  nil  and  its  mandate  of  leadership 
slight.  But  it  was  a long  step  forward.  Between  that  date 
and  1900  progress  was  slow.  Apparently  the  extensive 
theological  readjustment  of  that  era  diverted  attention 
from  questions  of  organization.  With  the  beginning  of 
the  present  century  there  was  a quickening  of  pace.  The 
functions  of  state  organizations  were  broadened  until 
the  present  condition  was  reached,  in  which  the  state  or- 
ganization (save  in  a few  exceptional  cases)  acts  admin- 
istratively with  full  authority  for  the  churches  within 
its  bounds  and  at  the  same  time  places  at  their  disposal 
such  inspirational  leadership  and  helpfulness  of  over- 


48 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


sight  as  it  is  capable  of  furnishing  and  they  are  disposed 
to  use.  Similarly,  the  National  Council  acts  for  and 
serves  the  churches  in  the  national  field.  The  national 
mission  boards  are  subject  to  its  general  control. 
Through  its  officials  and  commissions  it  offers  a wide 
variety  of  inspirational  and  educational  service. 

The  process  described  has  proceeded  in  all  essentials 
to  the  limit  which  the  nature  of  Congregationalism  per- 
mits. The  assignment  of  judicial  or  legislative  functions 
to  a representative  body  would  mean  that  Congregation- 
alism had  become  something  other  than  itself.  Such 
transformation  is  not  generally  desired  by  Congregation- 
alists  and  would  not  be  acceptable. 

2.  The  Attitude  of  the  Congregational  Churches  toward 
Union  with  Other  Churches 

Some  have  asumed  that  because  of  the  process  above 
described  there  has  been  a steady  movement  away  from 
the  spirit  of  unity  toward  hard-and-fast  denomination- 
alism.  Precisely  the  reverse  is  the  truth.  Congregation- 
alism in  developing  its  own  structure  has  become  both 
capable  and  desirous  of  fusing  with  others,  either  in  coop- 
erative or  organic  union.  The  completest  marriage  is 
between  persons  of  supreme  individuality.  So  of  or- 
ganizations. The  Congregationalism  of  a hundred  years 
ago  might  have  been  absorbed  by  another  body.  It 
could  not  have  united  with  that  body.  The  Congrega- 
tionalism of  today  can  and  will  enter  into  union  with 
others  when  the  way  shall  open. 

Like  all  denominations,  Congregationalism  has  its  fam- 
ily ties.  At  the  outset  of  its  history  its  closest  connection 
was  with  Presbyterianism.  This  was  due  partly  to  the 
fact  that  both  sprang  from  the  Puritan  movement  in 
England  and  Scotland  and  partly  to  the  fact  that  as 
pioneers  in  America,  working  side  by  side,  they  acquired 
the  intimacy  which  marks  pioneer  life.  The  early  tie  per- 
sists but  it  is  much  less  close  than  at  an  earlier  day. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


49 


In  theory  Congregationalists  and  Baptists  are  of  the 
same  household,  since  their  historic  roots  are  intertwined, 
their  polity  is  the  same,  and  their  emphasis  upon  liberty 
is  identical.  In  practice,  however,  it  can  hardly  be  said 
that  there  has  been  any  peculiar  and  marked  sense  of  kin- 
ship between  the  two  bodies. 

The  Unitarian  Churches  inherit  jointly  with  the  Con- 
gregational Churches  the  first  two  hundred  years  of  their 
history.  Since  the  schism  of  the  early  years  of  the  last 
century  their  paths  have  diverged.  The  question  is  often 
asked  whether  the  time  has  not  come  when  the  breach 
should  be  healed.  A full  discussion  of  the  factors  of  the 
problem  would  require  more  space  than  is  available  here. 
It  can  only  be  said  that  in  the  judgment  of  most  Congre- 
gationalists any  movement  toward  reunion  is  now  impos- 
sible. This  does  not  mean  that  Congregationalists  are 
willing  to  assume  an  attitude  of  irreconcilable  antagonism 
toward  the  Unitarian  body.  On  the  contrary,  there  is 
the  desire  to  recognize  whatever  of  common  outlook  is 
possessed  by  the  two  communions  and  to  cherish  the 
hope  of  a coming  day  when  the  barriers  of  separation 
shall  be  removed.  But  that  day  has  not  yet  arrived. 

Mention  should  be  made  in  passing  of  the  influence  of 
many  individual  Congregationalists  in  the  direction  of 
church  unity.  The  efforts  of  these  individuals  are 
the  more  significant  because  they  have  been  in  some 
sense  accepted  by  the  Congregational  Churches  as  ex- 
pressive of  their  spirit.  Long  years  ago  Washington 
Gladden  wrote  “The  Christian  League  of  Connecticut,” 
a pioneer  utterance  concerning  interchurch  cooperation. 
It  is  nearly  forty  years  since  Francis  E.  Clark  projected 
the  Christian  Endeavor  Society,  one  of  the  most  daring 
and  practical  assertions  of  the  essential  oneness  of  dis- 
ciples ever  made.  In  later  years  Howard  H.  Russell,  a 
Congregational  minister,  organized  the  Anti-Saloon 
League  which,  retaining  throughout  its  character  as  an 
alliance  of  the  churches,  has  won  the  most  conspicuous 


50 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


battle  against  a public  evil  of  all  history.  Still  later  Elias 
B.  Sanford,  after  a lifetime  of  agitation  for  unity,  suc- 
ceeded as  old  age  drew  on  in  founding  the  Federal  Coun- 
cil of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America.  In  Massachu- 
setts, where  Congregationalism  has  its  largest  strength, 
Rev.  E.  Tallmadge  Root,  one  of  its  ministers,  has  been 
able  to  develop  a state  federation  in  which  all  Protestant 
bodies  share  and  whose  influence  is  felt  to  every  remotest 
corner  of  the  commonwealth.  These  are  outstanding 
examples  of  a kind  of  service  which  the  Congregational 
Churches  have  rendered  through  men  and  women  whose 
ideals  they  have  fashioned. 

Congregationalists,  in  common  with  their  fellow- 
Christians  of  all  communions,  recognize  that  questions  of 
interdenominational  relationship  are  becoming  every  day 
more  insistent  and  important.  Thorough  discipline  of 
recent  years  has  revealed  the  weakness  of  disunity  and 
the  limitations  even  of  cooperative  effort.  The  appalling 
need  of  the  world  in  these  days  when  social  rebuilding 
proceeds  so  haltingly  challenges  us  to  think  things  through 
and  to  fashion  a course  sensitively  responsive  to  the  call 
of  the  hour.  What  is  Congregationalism’s  answer  to  that 
call?  A consensus  of  opinion  among  its  churches  could 
probably  be  expressed  in  such  statements  as  the  fol- 
lowing : 

a.  Congregationalism  seeks  to  unify  its  own  life  as  a 
prerequisite  to  the  wider  unification  for  which  it  prays. 
It  seeks  this  inner  unity  primarily  as  a spiritual  achieve- 
ment, through  a common  vision  of  Christ  and  a common 
devotion  to  His  cause.  It  seeks  it  also  as  an  organic 
achievement,  through  the  strengthening  of  its  organiza- 
tional structure  so  that  it  can  address  itself  with  all  its 
powers  to  common  tasks. 

b.  It  perceives  the  necessity  of  such  an  ordering  of  its 
life  as  will  enable  it  to  speak  and  act  effectively  in  its 
relationship  with  other  denominations.  It  is  wholly 
averse  to  the  creation  of  agencies  empowered  to  issue 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


5i 


orders  to  its  churches  or  its  members.  It  is,  on  the  other 
hand,  wholly  desirous  of  maintaining  agencies  which, 
acting  within  their  legitimate  advisory  bounds,  shall  so 
sense  the  mood  of  their  constituency  and  so  justly  esti- 
mate the  duty  of  the  hour  that  their  advice  shall  consti- 
tute a bond  of  unity  and  a basis  for  united  action. 

c.  It  desires  to  enlarge  its  realization  of  the  corporate 
oneness  of  the  Church  of  Christ  and  to  think  of  all  ques- 
tions with  which  it  has  to  do  in  terms  of  relationship 
rather  than  in  terms  of  an  isolated  individualism.  In  so 
doing  it  can  abate  nothing  of  its  emphasis  upon  the  liberty 
which  is  the  inalienable  right  of  every  believer  and  of 
every  group  of  believers  linked  together  in  covenant 
bonds.  It  simply  seeks  to  find  richer  expression  for  that 
liberty  through  ampler  recognition  of  those  compulsions 
of  love  which  are  upon  all  the  parts  of  the  body  of  Christ. 

d.  It  wishes  to  cherish  and  magnify  its  relation  to  the 
historic  Church  of  Christ.  The  creeds,  the  sacraments, 
the  traditions  and  the  annals  of  that  Church  it  counts  its 
own.  It  refuses  to  break  with  the  past.  Though  it  can- 
not repeat  all  the  affirmations  or  follow  all  the  customs  of 
that  past,  it  sees  in  them  all  the  effort  of  men  upon  whom 
rested  the  Spirit  of  God  to  give  expression  to  the  one 
changeless  Gospel  of  Fatherly  love  and  divine  redemption. 
Believing  this,  it  thinks  of  its  own  future  as  identified 
with  the  future  of  other  bodies  cherishing  in  their  way 
the  continuity  of  the  faith.  It  clings  to  the  word  “evan- 
gelical” and  desires  to  fill  it  with  fullest  content  of 
meaning. 

e.  It  recognizes  the  absolute  necessity  and  duty  of 
cooperation  among  the  forces  which  seek  to  build  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  Such  cooperation  may  sometimes  be 
in  temporary  and  local  forms ; sometimes  it  may  shape 
itself  upon  far-ranging  and  permanent  lines.  For  either 
or  both  the  denomination  stands  ready,  in  so  far 
as  it  can  perceive  that  it  will  serve  the  cause  of  Christ. 
Considerations  of  denominational  gain  or  loss  must  be 


52 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


set  aside.  The  sole  problem  is  how  to  find  a way  by 
which  all  the  Church  can  use  all  its  powers  in  the  service 
of  all  the  world. 

f.  It  believes  that  by  the  roadway  of  cooperation  the 
churches  will  come  and  ought  to  come  to  some  type  of 
organic  union.  Just  what  this  should  be  is  wholly  beyond 
the  power  of  anyone  to  answer.  Presumably  we  shall 
find  that  the  goal  to  which  we  are  being  led  is  that  of 
unity  in  diversity.  How  it  will  express  itself  organically, 
remains  to  be  seen.  But  it  is  wholly  certain  that  each 
denomination  must  reach  the  point  where  it  is  ready  to 
cast  aside  its  name  and  all  other  unessentials  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  higher  ends  sought.  In  like  way  it  must  be 
prepared  for  the  sake  of  those  ends  to  accept  forms  and 
methods  wholly  out  of  line  with  its  past,  provided  always 
they  do  not  involve  disloyalty  to  conviction  of  truth  or 
the  sense  of  duty. 

With  these  beliefs  and  desires,  Congregationalism 
looks  out  toward  the  future.  It  believes  that  denom- 
inationalism  has  rendered  the  world  a great  service. 
It  believes  also  that  its  day  is  well  nigh  past  and  that  the 
greater  service  of  the  coming  time  is  to  be  rendered  by  a 
united  Church. 

II.  The  Disciples  and  Unity 

The  Disciples  arose  in  the  opening  of  the  nineteenth 
century  in  the  Presbyterian  household,  out  of  a desire 
for  freedom  in  the  practice  of  catholicity  of  religion. 
Fellowship  with  all  who  love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was 
the  dominating  thought  in  the  minds  of  those  who  formed 
the  nucleus  of  this  movement,  which  was  first  called 
“The  Christian  Association.”  The  Seceder  Presbyteri- 
ans, with  whom  the  Campbells  were  identified,  practiced 
close  communion,  against  which  they  revolted.  Not  want- 
ing, however,  to  be  separated  from  the  Presbyterian 
household,  they  sought  membership  with  the  regular  Pres- 
byterian Church.  They  were  refused  fellowship  there, 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


53 


because  they  maintained  that  all  creedal  statements  as 
tests  of  fellowship  were  destructive  of  unity  in  the 
Church  and,  therefore,  that  the  Westminster  Confession 
of  Faith,  valuable  as  an  historical  document,  should  not 
be  made  a test  of  fellowship.  After  several  years  the 
leaders  of  this  movement  accepted  immersion  as  the  only 
Scriptural  baptism,  which  separated  them  still  further 
from  the  Presbyterians  and  at  the  same  time  made  pos- 
sible their  association  with  the  Baptists.  In  order  to  avoid 
being  a separate  denomination  they  identified  themselves 
with  the  Baptists,  hoping  in  that  denomination  to  be  able 
to  work  out  their  plans  for  the  unity  of  the  Church.  But 
here  also  they  proved  unwelcome  and  the  relationship 
was  dissolved. 

I.  The  Degree  of  Unity  among  the  Disciples 

Since  1832  the  Disciples  have  been  a separate  body, 
but  have  continued  to  bear  witness  to  the  necessity  of  a 
united  Church.  Following  these  separations  and  changes 
of  denominational  relationships,  however,  there  came  a 
period  of  debate  and  controversy,  in  which  the  original 
purpose  of  the  movement  was  obscured.  Two  inter- 
pretations have  prevailed  among  the  Disciples.  The  first 
had  to  do  with  Christian  unity  and  grew  out  of  a concern 
for  the  union  of  the  whole  Church,  upon  which  they 
believed  the  conversion  of  the  world  to  depend.  The  other 
had  to  do  with  the  restoration  of  the  primitive  Church,  so 
that  the  movement  came  to  be  called  by  many  “the  Res- 
toration Movement.”  This  second  position  received  con- 
siderable impetus  in  the  Baptist  fellowship  and  with  those 
who  insisted  on  it  Christian  unity  received  secondary 
consideration,  the  major  emphasis  being  put  upon  a re- 
turn to  the  practices  of  the  primitive  Church.  Zeal  for 
this  latter  interpretation  so  dominated  the  thought  of  the 
Disciples  for  a time  that  they  unconsciously  shifted  from 
their  original  desire  for  a larger  Christian  fellowship. 
During  this  period  they  gradually  took  on  all  the  denom- 


54 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


inational  characteristics,  maintaining  denominational 
journals,  denominational  colleges,  denominational  boards, 
denominational  conventions,  all  of  which  tended  to  ob- 
scure their  original  purpose  in  the  eyes  of  other 
Christians. 

This  policy,  however,  so  separated  them  from  other 
communions  that  in  their  isolation  they  became  in  many 
instances  as  sectarian  as  those  communions  surrounding 
them,  which  is  always  the  result  of  isolation,  irrespective 
of  what  one’s  doctrinal  beliefs  may  be.  This  was  so 
marked  that  as  late  as  1908,  on  the  organization  of  the 
Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America, 
the  affiliation  of  the  Disciples  with  that  organization  had 
to  be  by  individuals  rather  than  by  the  action  of  their 
General  Convention,  whereas  had  they  been  true  to  the 
principle  of  their  origin  they  would  have  been  first  and 
foremost  with  both  men  and  money  in  founding  the 
Council,  seeing  in  federation  one  of  the  steps  in  coop- 
eration that  lead  to  the  larger  unity  of  the  Church. 

The  increasing  unity  of  spirit  among  the  Disciples 
themselves  is  well  illustrated  by  the  recent  consolida- 
tion of  official  boards  of  the  Church.  Their  organized 
missionary  work  is  now  better  unified  than  at  any  time  in 
their  history.  All  of  their  missionary  boards  have  been 
united  in  one  organization,  under  the  title,  “United 
Christian  Missionary  Society,”  including  home  missions, 
foreign  missions,  church  extension,  benevolences,  wom- 
en’s work,  and  the  department  of  the  ministry. 

2.  Attitude  toward  Church  Union 

There  have  always  been  many  among  the  Disciples 
who  have  clung  to  the  original  catholicity  of  the  move- 
ment and  in  recent  years  this  number  has  been  greatly 
augmented.  Of  their  nine  national  boards  one — the 
Association  for  the  Promotion  of  Christian  Unity — is 
devoted  solely  to  the  interest  of  Christian  unity.  It  was 
organized  at  their  General  Convention  in  Topeka,  Kan- 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


55 


sas,  in  1910.  Its  purpose  is  to  watch  for  every  indica- 
tion of  Christian  unity  and  by  friendly  conferences  with 
other  Christians,  by  intercessory  prayer,  and  by  the  dis- 
tribution of  irenic  literature,  to  hasten  the  time  of  union. 
While  the  offerings  to  this  board  are  not  large,  neverthe- 
less to  maintain  such  a board  at  all  indicates  that  the 
Disciples  have  a background  for  unity  and  an  awakening 
interest  in  the  principle  which  gave  their  movement  its 
origin.  Through  this  board  they  are  in  hearty  accord 
and  cooperation  with  the  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches 
of  Christ  in  America,  the  American  Council  on  Organic 
Union  of  the  Evangelical  Churches  in  America,  the 
World  Conference  on  Faith  and  Order,  the  Universal 
Conference  on  Christian  Life  and  Work,  the  American 
Bible  Society,  the  World  Alliance  for  Promoting  Inter- 
national Friendship  through  the  Churches,  and  every 
other  movement  that  looks  toward  the  union  of  Christen- 
dom or  permanent  friendship  between  the  nations. 

Through  their  Association  for  the  Promotion  of  Chris- 
tian Unity  the  Disciples  have  held  conferences  with 
leaders  of  most  of  the  Protestant  bodies  in  America  and 
some  in  Europe.  Out  of  these  conferences  has  come  the 
formation  of  local  unions  of  churches  of  the  Disciples 
with  other  bodies,  as  well  as  the  joint  signing  of  doctrinal 
agreements  with  the  leaders  of  various  communions. 
Some  of  these  documents  have  been  of  historic  signifi- 
cance, such  as  the  resolutions  passed  in  Australia  by  rep- 
resentatives of  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Presby- 
terians as  a basis  for  corporate  reunion,  revised  and 
signed  unofficially  in  New  York  by  Episcopalians  and 
Disciples  in  1913;  likewise  the  five-fold  agreement 
signed  in  Philadelphia  by  Presbyterians  and  Disciples  on 
March  23,  1916,  and  ratified  that  year  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  and  the  General 
Convention  of  the  Disciples.  A significant  agreement 
between  Congregationalists  and  Disciples  was  formu- 
lated in  1912  and  published  in  the  papers  of  the  respec- 


56 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


tive  communions,  upon  which  a number  of  churches  in 
small  communities  united,  followed  by  later  agreements 
signed  in  New  York  in  1918.  Articles  of  agreement 
were  also  signed  by  Christians  and  Disciples  in  Norfolk, 
April  3,  1918. 

Through  their  Association  they  conduct  a large  cor- 
respondence on  Christian  unity  with  persons  in  all  com- 
munions in  all  parts  of  the  world.  Their  office  is  a 
depository  of  all  kinds  of  literature  on  Christian  unity. 
Their  outgoing  mail  on  this  subject  averages  25,000  pieces 
a year.  They  maintain  a League  of  Prayer,  which,  like 
their  literature,  is  shared  by  persons  of  all  communions, 
praying  constantly  for  the  union  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 
They  have  named  Pentecost  Sunday  as  a day  for  special 
prayers  and  sermons  on  the  subject  of  Christian  unity. 
They  are  issuing  a set  of  books  from  the  outstanding 
points  of  view  on  Christian  unity,  the  authors  being  from 
various  communions  and  of  various  nationalities.  The 
first  volume  has  already  appeared,  serving  as  an  intro- 
duction and  dealing  with  the  necessity,  growth,  and  out- 
look of  Christian  unity.  The  next  volume  will  be  by  the 
Lutheran  Archbishop  of  Upsala,  and  the  remaining  vol- 
umes will  cover  the  whole  field  of  Christian  unity  as  seen 
by  some  of  the  apostles  of  reconciliation  in  the  House 
of  Christ. 

The  Disciples  do  not  seek  so  much  for  others  to  come 
into  their  membership  as  for  others  to  accept  certain  prin- 
ciples that  they  believe  make  for  unity  in  the  Church  of 
Christ.  These  may  be  simplified  into  the  following  six 
proposals : 

a.  A catholic  name  for  individuals,  such  as  “Disciples,” 
“Christians,”  or  similar  term ; and  for  the  whole  body, 
such  as  “Church  of  Christ,’”  “Church  of  God,”  “Chris- 
tian Church.” 

b.  A catholic  creed,  such  as  that  expressed  in  the 
words  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  “Thou  art  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  the  living  God.” 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION  57 

c.  A catholic  book — the  holy  Scriptures — as  sufficient 
for  the  rule  of  Christian  life. 

d.  A catholic  administration  of  the  ordinances  of  bap- 
tism and  the  Lord’s  Supper  as  practiced  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament times  and  with  the  use  of  Christ’s  words. 

e.  A catholic  polity  of  church  government,  recogniz- 
ing the  universal  suffrage  and  priesthood  of  all  believers. 

f.  A catholic  brotherhood,  holding  fellowship  in  the 
Lord’s  Supper  with  all  who  have  received  Jesus  as  Lord 
and  Saviour. 

Indications  among  the  Disciples  of  growing  interest  in 
Christian  unity  are  encouraging.  With  a larger  under- 
standing of  others  and  more  sympathy  with  those  from 
whom  they  differ,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  Disciples,  who 
started  out  a hundred  years  ago  with  a primary  concern 
for  the  unity  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  are  still  profoundly 
interested  in  this  subject,  even  though  they  differ  among 
themselves  in  interpretation  and  methods  of  approach. 

III.  The  Lutheran  Church  and  Unity 

The  attitude  of  the  Lutheran  Church  toward  church 
unity  is  determined  by  its  belief  concerning  the  nature  of 
the  Church.  That  belief  is  clearly  stated  in  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  as  follows : “They  teach  that  one  holy 
Church  is  to  continue  forever.  But  the  Church  is  the 
congregation  of  saints,  in  which  the  Gospel  is  rightly 
taught  and  the  Sacraments  rightly  administered.  And 
unto  the  true  unity  of  the  Church  it  is  sufficient  to  agree 
concerning  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  and  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  Sacraments ; nor  is  it  necessary  that  human 
traditions,  rites,  or  ceremonies  instituted  by  men,  should 
be  everywhere  alike ; as  St.  Paul  saith,  ‘One  faith,  one 
baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all.’  ” 

1.  The  Unity  within  the  Lutheran  Church 

This  confession  is  subscribed  to  by  Lutherans  of  all 
shades  of  opinion,  and  from  its  statement  two  things  are 


58 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


apparent:  first,  the  vital  importance  of  the  congrega- 
tion ; second,  the  supreme  importance  of  faith  and  its 
confession.  The  unity  of  the  Church  can  consist  in  noth- 
ing else  than  in  unity  of  faith,  and  the  unit  of  the  Church 
must  always  be  the  congregation  in  which  that  one  faith 
is  confessed. 

The  practical  effect  of  this  conviction  is  evident  in 
the  worship  of  the  Church.  The  Lutheran  Church  pos- 
sesses an  exceedingly  rich  liturgical  heritage  which  per- 
mits of  extensive  and  varied  elaboration.  The  liturgy 
is  published  by  church  authority,  but  no  Lutheran  con- 
gregation is  bound  to  the  use  of  that  liturgy ; the  mode  of 
its  worship  is  entirely  within  its  own  control.  This  same 
principle  of  freedom  is  applied  in  the  whole  field  of 
church  organization.  A congregation  is  free,  if  it  so 
desires,  to  ordain  its  own  pastor,  the  right  of  a synod  to 
control  ordination  being  a delegated  right.  No  one  form 
of  organization  is  regarded  as  divinely  instituted,  and 
therefore  legally  binding,  upon  the  Church.  A church 
body  may  be  episcopal  or  presbyterian  in  its  form  of  gov- 
ernment, and  yet  be  recognized  as  a Lutheran  Church, 
provided  it  does  not  insist  that  every  church  must  be  so 
organized.  Thus  the  Lutheran  Church  shows  a larger 
variety  and  a greater  number  of  independent  ecclesias- 
tical organizations  than  any  other  church  in  the  world. 

Because  of  this  fundamental  principle  the  Lutheran 
Church  has  not  been  greatly  concerned  about  the  sub- 
ject of  organic  union,  either  with  other  churches  or  with- 
in itself,  believing  that  unity  of  organization  is  no  more 
than  a means  to  an  end,  and  can  be  vital  only  as  the 
expression  of  unity  of  faith.  The  Lutheran  Church  is 
fully  persuaded  that  there  is  one  Church  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  that  all  who  can  truly  be  called  believers  are  already 
within  this  one  Church.  Admitting  the  advantages  of 
external  union  when  it  is  a real  expression  of  inner  unity 
of  faith,  it  believes  that  such  external  union  is  value- 
less unless  based  upon  a common  confession. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


59 


It  is  from  this  point  of  view  that  recent  movements 
within  the  Lutheran  Church  must  be  interpreted.  The 
number  of  independent  congregations  is  negligible  and 
is  decreasing  annually;  the  use  of  a Lutheran  liturgy  is 
becoming  the  external  mark  of  a Lutheran  congregation ; 
the  Lutheran  church  bodies  in  America  are  approximat- 
ing a single  type  of  organization.  The  cause  is  in  each 
case  the  same,  namely,  that  the  congregations  are  in- 
creasingly conscious  of  a common  heritage  of  faith. 

The  same  principle  applies  to  the  movements  for  or- 
ganic union  within  the  Lutheran  Church.  They  have 
progressed  more  rapidly  and  have  assumed  larger  prac- 
tical importance  than  any  similar  movements  in  American 
Protestantism.  Before  1890  the  relatively  small  number 
of  Norwegian  Lutherans  in  America  was  divided  into 
five  separate  and  distinct  synods.  In  that  year  three  of 
these  synods  combined  to  form  the  United  Norwegian 
Lutheran  Church  in  America ; in  1917  this  body  united 
with  two  others  to  form  the  Norwegian  Lutheran  Church 
in  America.  The  new  body  contains  six-sevenths  of  all 
the  Norwegian  Lutherans  in  the  United  States  and  Can- 
ada, with  a communicant  membership  of  300,000.  In 
1918  the  three  general  Lutheran  bodies  which  represent 
the  oldest  Lutheran  church  organizations  in  America  (the 
oldest  of  the  synods  dating  from  1746)  combined  to  form 
the  United  Lutheran  Church  in  America,  with  a member- 
ship of  750,000  communicants.  Both  of  these  mergers 
have  established  new  ecclesiastical  organizations,  and  are 
movements  of  organic  union  in  the  very  strictest  sense. 
The  merging  bodies  have  surrendered  their  separate  iden- 
tity entirely  and  have  given  up  even  their  names.  Since 
1872  the  Lutheran  Synodical  Conference  has  been  in  ex- 
istence, and  has  drawn  into  its  membership  at  various 
times  synods  and  parts  of  synods  until  it  now  contains 
830,000  communicants.  The  present  situation  in  the 
Lutheran  Church  in  America  may,  then,  be  summarized 
as  follows : It  contains  all  told  approximately  2,500,000 


6o 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


communicants.  One  third  of  these  are  in  congregations 
of  the  United  Lutheran  Church;  a second  third  are  in 
a dozen  or  more  independent  synodical  bodies,  four  of 
which  contain  three-fourths  of  all  the  communicants ; 
the  remaining  third  are  in  the  Synodical  Conference. 

All  of  these  movements  for  unification  have  rested  on 
the  conviction  of  community  of  faith.  That  they  have 
developed  rapidly  within  the  last  five  years  is  due  to  the 
growing  recognition  that  this  community  of  faith  is  really 
a fact.  Feeling  themselves  to  be  actually  one  in  the 
things  which  they  believe  to  make  a church,  the  merg- 
ing bodies  have  considered  it  a privilege  as  well  as  a duty 
to  enter  into  the  closest  possible  fellowship. 

Since  1917  the  Lutheran  Church  has  had  two  general 
organizations  which  cannot  be  regarded  as  in  any  sense 
unions  of  the  church  bodies  concerned,  but  which  have 
brought  these  bodies  together  in  close  and  important  coop- 
erative efforts.  These  organizations  are  the  National 
Lutheran  Commission  for  Soldiers’  and  Sailors’  Wel- 
fare and  the  National  Lutheran  Council.  The  Com- 
mission, organized  in  19x7  for  the  purpose  of  caring  for 
the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  Lutheran  young  men  in  the 
national  service,  included  all  the  larger  Lutheran  church 
bodies  and  most  of  the  smaller  ones,  with  the  exception 
of  the  Synodical  Conference,  though  even  that  body  did 
cooperate  for  a time  in  some  of  the  activities  of  the  com- 
mission. The  Council  was  organized  in  1918  by  repre- 
sentatives of  the  same  bodies  which  had  previously 
formed  the  Commission.  Its  purpose  was  to  secure  coop- 
eration, where  possible,  in  matters  that  lay  outside  the 
powers  of  the  Commission.  The  bodies  cooperating  in 
the  Commission  and  the  Council  comprise  two-thirds  of 
all  the  Lutherans  in  America. 

The  work  of  the  Council  has  been  chiefly  overseas. 
It  has  standing  commissioners  to  the  Lutheran  Churches 
of  Europe  and  has  formed  connections  with  the  Luther- 
ans of  practically  all  the  European  countries.  These  con- 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


61 


nections  do  not  look  toward  an  international  organic 
union  of  Lutherans,  but  have  been  formed  only  as  a 
means  for  affording  aid  in  the  present  distress  of  the 
European  churches.  The  work  that  the  National  Coun- 
cil is  doing  at  home  extends  only  to  the  point  of  coop- 
eration in  those  objects  which  do  not  involve  confessional 
unity  on  the  part  of  the  cooperating  bodies.  For  although 
the  synods  cooperating  in  the  National  Lutheran  Council 
recognize  each  other  as  truly  Lutheran  bodies,  never- 
theless there  are  differences  between  them  on  points  of 
faith  and  practice  which  are  still  a barrier  to  a general 
union.  Thus  the  movement  represented  by  the  Commis- 
sion and  the  Council,  like  the  others  which  have  been 
mentioned,  rests  upon  a recognition  of  inner  unity,  and 
the  organizations  are  merely  an  expression  of  the  degree 
of  unity  which  is  recognized  as  already  attained. 

2.  Attitude  toward  Cooperation  and  Union  with  Other 
Churches 

Among  many  of  the  Lutherans  of  America  there  is  a 
growing  conviction  that  they  need  to  speak  clearly  on  the 
whole  subject  of  the  cooperation  and  the  organic  union 
of  the  Protestant  Churches.  Heretofore  they  have  quite 
generally  contented  themselves  with  holding  aloof  from 
such  movements  and  speaking  on  the  subject  only  to  their 
own  people,  but  they  are  beginning  to  feel  that  they  owe 
it  to  themselves  and  to  American  Protestantism  to  make 
their  convictions  plain  to  everybody.  There  is  among 
them  an  increasing  desire  to  find  ways  of  cooperation 
with  other  Christians  and  to  clarify  the  problem  of  or- 
ganic union  by  securing  a recognition  of  the  principles  on 
which  such  a union  must  rest.  This  desire  is  felt  most 
strongly  in  the  United  Lutheran  Church,  but  it  is  shared 
by  many  outside  that  body. 

The  following  is  a summary  of  an  official  declaration 
which  was  adopted  by  the  Convention  of  the  United 
Lutheran  Church  in  October,  1920: 


62 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


a.  The  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  fellowship  of  all 
believers,  the  “communion  of  saints.”  Its  existence  is 
an  article  of  faith,  which  cannot  be  demonstrated,  but 
which  is  asserted  in  the  Scriptures,  and  is  a necessary 
consequence  of  belief  in  the  continued  life  of  Christ  in 
all  His  followers  and  in  the  efficacy  of  the  means  of 
grace.  Of  this  Church  we  believe  that  it  is  one,  holy, 
catholic,  and  apostolic. 

b.  The  one  holy  Church  performs  its  functions  and 
makes  its  presence  known  through  groups  of  men  and 
women  who  confess  their  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  These 
groups  are  known  as  churches,  and  each  of  them — con- 
gregation, denomination,  or  what  not — will  inevitably 
seek  to  realize  the  attributes  of  the  one,  holy,  catholic, 
and  apostolic  Church. 

c.  The  true  function  of  the  churches,  therefore,  is  the 
confession  of  faith,  the  preaching  of  the  Word  of  God, 
the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  and  the  perform- 
ance of  works  of  serving  love. 

d.  In  their  relationships  to  other  churches,  every 
church  should  always  be  ready  to  declare  unequivocally 
what  it  believes  about  Christ  and  His  Gospel,  and  to 
show  that  it  has  truly  interpreted  the  Gospel.  It  should 
grant  cordial  recognition  to  all  agreements  with  other  sim- 
ilar groups,  approaching  them  without  hostility,  jealousy, 
suspicion,  or  pride.  At  the  same  time,  it  should  not  neg- 
lect to  bear  witness  to  the  truth  when  it  believes  others 
to  be  in  error.  It  should  seek  to  cooperate  with  others 
in  works  of  serving  love,  provided  always  that  such  coop- 
eration does  not  involve  suppression  of  testimony  to  truth, 
or  acquiescence  in  error. 

e.  On  the  basis  of  these  principles  the  Lutheran 
Church  believes  that  the  only  sound  method  of  approach 
to  organic  union  is  one  that  will  definitely  establish  the 
extent  of  the  agreements  and  disagreements  in  faith 
between  the  churches  which  it  is  proposed  to  unite.  It 
is  convinced  that  until  larger  unity  of  confession  is  at- 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION  63 

tained  than  now  exists,  it  must  maintain  its  separate  iden- 
tity as  a witness  to  the  truth  which  it  knows. 

f.  Resting  on  the  same  principles,  it  is  convinced  that 
the  Christian  desire  for  cooperation  must  be  limited  in 
practice  in  such  a way  that  it  shall  not  be  led  into  acqui- 
escence in  error  or  forced  to  a suppression  of  testimony 
to  truth.  For  this  reason  it  believes  that  proposals  for 
cooperation  among  the  churches  should  be  accompanied 
by  a definite  statement  of  fundamental  principles  drawn 
from  the  gospels  and  embodying  the  essential  content  of 
the  Christian  message.  Indeed  it  stands  ready  to  propose 
such  principles. 

g.  On  the  basis  of  such  principles  the  United  Lutheran 
Church,  at  least,  will  be  ready  to  enter  into  cooperative 
movements  with  other  churches,  provided  three  condi- 
tions are  satisfied,  viz. : 

(1)  These  principles  must  not  be  denied,  either  in 
theory  or  in  practice  by  the  cooperative  movement. 

(2)  The  cooperating  churches  must  not  be  limited, 
while  participating  in  cooperative  movements,  in  their 
confession  of  the  whole  truth  which  they  hold,  even 
though  that  truth  may  not  be  held,  or  not  held  in  the 
same  way,  by  all  those  who  are  cooperating. 

(3)  The  purposes  of  cooperation  must  lie  within  the 
proper  sphere  of  church  activity,  which  is  the  preaching 
of  the  Gospel,  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  and 
the  performance  of  works  of  serving  love.  It  does  not 
extend  to  the  enactment  and  enforcement  of  law  or  the 
application  of  external  force  of  any  kind. 

IV.  The  Methodist  Church  and  Unity 
1.  The  Unity  within  the  Methodist  Church 

Methodism,  whether  in  England  or  America,  has 
divided  not  on  questions  of  doctrine  but  upon  those  of 
practice  and  polity.  In  America  there  have  been  or- 
ganized protests  against  slackened  zeal  and  surrender  to 


64 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


“worldliness.”  Disregard  of  the  rights  of  the  laity  to 
representation  in  the  conferences  and  assertion  of  the 
rights  of  pastors  to  participation  in  the  arrangement  of 
the  appointments  have  caused  withdrawals  from  the 
central  body.  Especially  has  resistance  to  the  fact  and 
the  tendency  of  the  episcopacy  created  discontent  and 
defection.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  actual  num- 
ber of  Methodists  to  be  accounted  for  in  these  sincere  and 
intensely  conscientious  movements  is  relatively  small  and 
that  many  of  the  causes  of  separation  have  long  since 
been  removed. 

The  difference  of  judgment  and  conviction  concerning 
slavery  was  an  important  underlying  cause  of  some  of  the 
early  divisions  and  entered  deeply  into  the  controversy 
resulting  in  the  division  in  1844,  which  left  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  as  one — the  larger — fragment  of  the 
church,  chiefly  in  the  North,  and  led  to  the  organization 
of  the  other  fragment — the  conferences  which  withdrew 
— altogether  on  the  border  and  in  the  South,  as  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South.  In  a true  interpretation 
of  Providence,  slavery  was  the  cause  of  this  separation. 
As  a matter  of  fact,  a question  of  ecclesiastical  procedure 
was  the  immediate  occasion.  Two  schools  had  arisen 
during  the  sixty' years  of  the  church’s  organized  life,  the 
one  holding  that  the  final  authority  in  the  church  was 
vested  in  the  episcopacy,  the  other  that  this  authority  in- 
hered in  the  General  Conference — the  supreme  law-mak- 
ing body  of  the  church.  Undoubtedly  once  the  separa- 
tion had  occurred,  the  profound  moral  issue  involved  in 
human  slavery  came  to  be  regarded  as  the  essential  dif- 
ference between  the  two  bodies. 

One  in  origin,  in  doctrine,  in  spirit,  in  method,  in  ulti- 
mate aim,  it  was  inevitable  that  men  of  good  will  in  both 
these  great  branches  of  Methodism  should  seek  for  some 
common  ground.  Fraternal  delegates  from  each  to  the 
General  Conference  of  the  other  have  long  stirred  both 
the  churches  by  declarations  of  good  will  and  avowals 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


65 


of  high  purpose.  The  membership  of  both  is  so  vast 
that  the  discussion  of  union  or  “unification”  is  with  multi- 
tudes almost  wholly  academic.  But  to  the  leaders  in  the 
churches,  to  the  membership  of  each  in  the  normal  ter- 
ritory of  the  other,  and  to  the  ministers  and  the  people 
in  the  conferences  which  interplay  throughout  the  broad 
belt  which  we  call  the  border,  the  issues  involved  seem 
immediate  and  vital. 

At  the  historic  conference  at  Cape  May  in  1876  the 
two  commissions  appointed  by  the  respective  General 
Conferences  of  the  churches  adopted  a “Declaration  and 
Basis  of  Fraternity.”  This  cleared  away  long  cherished 
misunderstandings  and  opened  the  way  for  the  negotia- 
tions of  two  score  and  more  years.  The  progress  has 
not  been  rapid,  to  say  the  least,  and  yet  those  who  have 
marked  the  increase  of  personal  friendship,  the  fading 
away  of  misconceptions,  the  attrition  which  has  worn 
away  obstinate  prejudice,  and  the  actual  gains  in  the 
common  agreements  reached  from  time  to  time,  have  been 
assured  that  the  hope  for  a reunited  Methodism  is  some- 
thing more  than  a dream. 

Proposals  which  have  looked  toward  “unification  by 
reorganization”  have  been  under  the  consideration  of  a 
joint  commission  of  representative  men  of  both  churches 
during  the  four  years  past.  A plan  which  involved  a 
distribution  of  territory  into  regional  conferences,  with 
large  local  autonomy,  made  provision  for  a General  Con- 
ference with  central  authority  in  all  matters  connectional, 
established  a judicial  conference  or  court  with  certain 
legal  powers,  and  while  fixing  certain  limitations  recog- 
nized the  need  of  enlarged  self-government  in  the  Church 
in  foreign  fields,  was  wrought  out  with  great  care  by  the 
Commission.  It  was  transmitted  without  recommenda- 
tion to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  at  its  quadrennial  session  at  Des  Moines 
in  May,  1920.  After  most  careful  consideration  it  was 
neither  accepted  nor  rejected.  Three  major  objections  to 


66 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


it  were  presented  in  discussion : first,  that  it  discrimi- 
nated against  the  Negro  in  the  matter  of  representation 
in  the  highest  legislative  body;  second,  that  it  inade- 
quately recognized  the  rights  of  the  rising  Church  in 
foreign  lands;  third,  that  its  plan  for  regional  confer- 
ences was  at  once  unwieldy  and  divisive.  Many  were 
convinced  that  for  an  ecumenical  church  some  plan  for 
subsections  which  would  provide  for  local  autonomy  is 
essential,  and  that  a way  should  be  found  to  correct  the 
disadvantages  placed  upon  the  constituencies  overseas 
and  to  secure  equality  of  treatment  for  the  Negro  mem- 
bership. The  General  Conference  reconstituted  the  Com- 
mission, relieving  it  of  previous  restrictions,  expressed 
desire  that  the  General  Conference  of  the  other  church 
would  continue  its  Commission  or  create  a new  one,  and 
presented  for  the  favorable  consideration  of  the  Meth- 
odist Church,  South,4  a plan  for  a popular  convention 
consisting  of  from  200  to  400  from  each  church,  in  which 
more  broadly  representative  assembly  the  whole  question 
of  unification  should  be  considered. 

This  is  the  present  technical  status  in  the  relationships 
of  the  two  largest  Methodist  bodies  in  the  United  States. 
There  is  disappointment  that  a more  conclusive  result 
has  not  by  this  time  been  attained.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  two  great  churches  at  heart  profoundly 
desire  union  in  some  form,  and  among  many  of  the 
leaders  the  purpose  to  achieve  the  desired  end  is  deeper 
and  more  ardent  than  ever. 

In  addition  to  the  significant  efforts  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  are  the  friendly  tendencies  of  smaller  groups  to- 
ward closer  affiliation  and  the  definite  proposals  of  the 
large  organizations  of  Negro  Methodists  for  union  among 
themselves.  Long  since  in  Canada  the  several  branches 
of  Methodism  have  become  one  church;  in  Australia 

"The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Church,  South, 
meets  in  1922. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


6 7 


union  has  been  practically  accomplished ; in  Great  Britain 
in  1907  was  consummated  the  union  of  three  bodies  into 
one,  and  this  new  organization  and  the  others  remaining 
are  moving  as  rapidly  as  conditions  will  allow  toward 
that  complete  union  which  will  be  really  a merger  of  all 
these  historic  British  groups  into  one  Methodist  Church. 
The  study  of  the  facts  and  the  appraisal  of  the  present 
temper  of  Methodists  throughout  the  world  results  in  the 
conviction  that  “Methodism  is  now,”  as  a recent  writer 
has  said,  “an  unbroken  fellowship.  Not  only  has  the 
spirit  of  conflict  disappeared,  but  it  has  given  place  to  an 
unmistakable  desire  for  reconciliation  and  reunion.” 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Methodists  of  every  name 
are  characterized  by  the  consciousness  of  a common  her- 
itage and  of  close  kinship.  There  is  a “sense  of  birth- 
right” and  of  intimate  spiritual  fellowship.  Its  delight 
extends  to  every  group  and  member  of  the  family  and 
in  it  are  present  solidarity  and  the  basis  for  an  inev- 
itable union  ultimately.  This  can  be  understood  only 
when  it  is  remembered  that  the  “primary  idea  of  Method- 
ism lies  in  its  emphasis  upon  experience” — not  upon  emo- 
tion or  sentiment  but  upon  a conscious  personal  relation 
to  God  through  Christ  which  means  assurance  of  for- 
giveness, deliverance,  spiritual  power,  and  joy.  Meth- 
odism was  not  primarily  a protest  against  the  theology 
of  the  day  or  a reaction  against  any  ecclesiastical  consti- 
tution. A careful  English  interpreter  has  said : 

“The  fundamental  identity  of  Methodism  is  the  appre- 
hension of  the  supreme  and  universal  love  of  God  as  the 
essence  of  the  Gospel,  of  man  as  made  for  the  fellowship 
of  that  love,  of  sin  as  withstanding  it,  of  grace  (in  Jesus 
Christ)  as  atoning  for  sin  and  enthroning  the  love  of  God 
once  more  in  the  heart.  The  conditions  under  which 
Methodism  arose  led  to  its  concentration  upon  this  mas- 
ter truth.  It  attracted  those  who  experienced  its  vitaliz- 
ing power.  This  is  the  bond  of  union  between  its  mem- 
bers throughout  all  its  branches.  When  this  bond  weak- 
ens it  falls  to  pieces  at  once.” 


68 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


The  search  for  this  spiritual  experience  was  the  quest 
of  devout  souls  long  before  John  Wesley  found  in  it  the 
glowing  center  of  a new  religious  life  for  himself  and  for 
those  to  whom  he  unceasingly  proclaimed  it,  and  the  rec- 
ognition of  it  as  the  rightful  possession  of  all  to  whom 
God  is  Love  as  well  as  Law,  to  whom  Jesus  Christ  is  a 
living  Lord  as  truly  as  He  was  the  crucified  Saviour,  is 
limited  by  no  denominational  tradition  or  barrier.  None 
the  less  it  is  typically  a mark  of  Methodist  life,  perma- 
nent and  universal,  is  essential  to  it,  and  all  branches  of 
Methodism  throughout  the  world  respect  it  and  seek  to 
maintain  it. 

2.  Attitude  toward  Union  with  Other  Churches 

The  relation  of  Methodism  in  all  its  branches  to  other 
denominations  depends  not  only  upon  its  essential  spirit, 
which  is  distinctly  irenic  in  the  field  of  discussion  and 
sympathetic  in  the  field  of  action,  but  as  well  upon  the 
organization  through  which  that  spirit  is  finding  expres- 
sion. Out  of  the  controversies  which  were  inevitable  in 
the  united  societies  in  England  after  John  Wesley’s  death, 
when  authority  and  liberty  were  adjusting  themselves 
each  to  the  other  in  an  organization  which  was  not  during 
his  lifetime  a church,  and  in  the  untried  methods  of  the 
new  Methodism  in  this  new  world,  have  grown  forms 
of  administration  which  on  the  one  hand  have  close 
affinity  to  those  in  some  other  denominations  and  on  the 
other  are  distinctive  and  unique.  The  general  superin- 
tendency, lay  representation,  the  powers  of  the  confer- 
ence, the  itinerancy,  democracy  in  the  local  church,  the 
connectional  bond,  all  belong  in  some  form  to  all  branches 
of  the  Methodist  family.  The  organizing  process  con- 
tinues, rarely  affecting  the  constitutional  basis  but  ad- 
justing and  readjusting  the  non-essentials  to  meet  new 
conditions  and  to  give  play  to  fresh  forces.  It  is  clear 
that  Methodists  are  not  exempt  from  that  preoccupation 
with  the  methods  of  service  which,  in  all  bodies,  so  easily 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


69 


suppresses  the  enthusiasm  for  the  ideals  of  the  spirit. 
The  strain  placed  upon  individual  attention  by  a connec- 
tional  system  at  once  strengthens  the  sense  of  a wide- 
reaching  fellowship  in  service  and,  quite  possibly,  at  the 
same  time  limits  this  interest  to  the  system  itself.  The 
range  of  denominational  activities,  in  a membership  of 
three  or  four  millions,  with  every  form  of  Christian  insti- 
tution represented,  and  with  organized  work  in  every 
land,  is  so  extended  that  the  consciousness  of  denomina- 
tional divisions  may  easily  be  dimmed,  and  the  lack  of 
unity  may  be  viewed  with  slight  concern.  It  is  quite 
likely,  therefore,  that  without  the  least  disregard  for  the 
devoted  purpose  of  those  forward-looking  spirits  among 
Methodists  or  among  other  denominations  who  feel  the 
urgency  of  union,  and  with  no  denial  whatever  of  the 
principles  which  warrant  the  effort  to  achieve  it,  mul- 
titudes in  the  Methodist  groups — possibly  it  may  be 
also  true  of  other  groups — are  without  eagerness,  it  may 
be,  without  care,  concerning  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  three  facts  should  stand  out  clearly 
in  the  survey  of  this  subject: 

First : Among  Methodists  there  are  many  individuals 
to  whom  the  appeal  for  union  comes  as  a divine  com- 
mand and  who,  in  deed  and  prayer,  work  and  wait  for 
that  consummation. 

Second : In  statement  of  belief,  in  Christian  practice, 
or  in  church  organization,  there  is  no  essential  bar  to 
unity  of  the  spirit  and  none  to  a union  in  external  admin- 
istration which  recognizes  the  truth  of  history  and  of  the 
Word  of  God. 

Third : Methodism  has  shown,  and  doubtless  will  show, 
in  utterances  and  activities,  that  opportunities  for  comity, 
cooperation,  and  federation  are  always  welcome  to  her, 
believing  that  if  we  are  laborers  together  with  God  we 
are  also,  and  primarily,  workers  together  with  one  an- 
other. 

In  numerous  instances  this  cooperative  spirit  has  been 


70 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


shown  by  organized  groups  as  well  as  by  individuals  and 
it  is  in  this  direction  that  the  hope  for  more  complete 
union  is  most  clearly  to  be  found.  Acts  of  cooperation, 
either  individual  or  corporate,  if  developed  into  habit 
become  far-reaching  in  their  influence.  The  example  of 
those  who,  while  leaders  in  any  denominational  service, 
are  also  easily  and  happily  at  home  wherever  men  of 
good  will  are  in  fellowship,  is  a cogent  argument  for  the 
recognition  of  spiritual  unity  and  tends  toward  the  actual 
merger  of  the  organized  groups  which  now  seem  so  sadly 
divergent.  To  increase  these  contacts  and  to  multiply 
the  number  of  those  who  participate  in  them  is  as  definite 
a service  for  unity  as  are  academic  discussions  of  the 
“Quadrilateral”  or  debates  upon  rival  theories  of  church 
government. 

We  might  summarize  this  discussion  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  by  saying  that  in  any  of  its  confer- 
ences or  congregations  a test  inquiry  would  find  a large 
majority  ready  for  any  feasible  cooperation,  friendly  to 
definite  federation,  responsive  to  the  appeal  for  organic 
union,  and  sympathetic  with  the  ideals  of  those  who  seek 
to  promote  it,  but  incredulous  as  to  its  practicability.  But 
the  desire  for  a union  as  nearly  complete  as  human  con- 
ditions may  allow  is  a growing  experience  in  the  thought- 
ful circles  of  Methodism.  The  will  to  produce  this  result 
is  probably  not  strongly  indicated  in  the  thinking  and 
activities  of  the  denomination  but,  without  doubt,  warm- 
est welcome  awaits  those  conditions  in  the  common  de- 
velopment of  the  programs  of  the  several  denominations 
which  will  illustrate  and  promote  the  unity  for  which 
devout  believers  of  every  name  constantly  pray. 

V.  The  Churches  of  the  Northern  Baptist  Con- 
vention and  Unity 

I.  The  Unity  among  the  Baptist  Churches 

While  there  is  no  authoritative  creedal  statement 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


7 1 


among  the  Baptists,  the  fundamental  Baptist  contention 
may  be  said  to  have  been  the  spirituality  of  Christianity. 
Among  the  principles  and  inferences  to  which  they  gen- 
erally hold  may  be  enumerated:  the  immediacy  of  the 
communion  of  the  soul  with  God;  the  voluntariness  of 
religion,  with  its  application  to  the  separation  of  Church 
and  State  and  the  baptism  of  infants;  the  equality  and 
liberty  of  believers  within  the  Church,  from  which  would 
be  inferred  the  democracy  and  the  independence  of  the 
local  church,  and  the  denial  to  any  man  or  any  organiza- 
tion of  the  right  to  impose  upon  the  individual  believer 
the  acceptance  of  any  creedal  interpretation  of  the  Gos- 
pel ; the  spirituality  of  the  Church,  implying  among  other 
things  a regenerate  church  membership.  This  is  only  a 
partial  statement  and  there  is  wide  diversity  upon  points 
which  most  Baptists  do  not  regard  as  being  essential. 
There  is,  however,  a body  of  principles  which  are  gen- 
erally accepted  among  them  and  which  constitute  a very 
real  bond  of  unity. 

In  addition  to  any  unity  of  conviction,  there  is  the  tre- 
mendously vital  principle  of  an  organized  and  unified 
work.  The  bearing  of  this  upon  interdenominationalism 
would  seem  to  be  that  the  way  to  get  together  is  to  work 
together  in  a common  task  and  to  pray  together  for  the 
common  cause  in  which  each  denomination  is  trying  to 
do  its  share.  The  unity  created  and  fostered  by  the 
presence  of  a common  task,  together  with  great  common 
convictions  as  to  the  supreme  and  undying  truths  of  the 
Gospel,  constitute  the  only  basis  of  a bond  of  unity 
among  the  denominations. 

The  spirit  of  unity  within  the  Baptist  constituency  of 
the  North  has  been  largely  increased  since  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Northern  Baptist  Convention,  which  held  its 
eleventh  annual  meeting  in  June  of  this  year.  The 
machinery  of  the  Convention  has  been  largely  unified  by 
the  creation  in  1919  of  the  Board  of  Promotion  of  about 
150  members,  representing  in  a very  comprehensive  way 


72 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


the  constituent  factors  in  the  Convention,  such  as  the 
Executive  Committee  and  the  cooperating  organizations 
— including  the  Foreign  Mission  Society,  the  Home  Mis- 
sion Society,  the  Publication  Society,  the  standard  city 
mission  societies,  the  state  conventions,  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, the  Ministers’  and  Missionaries’  Benefit  Board, 
and  others.  It  may  rightly  be  said  that  the  Board  of  Pro- 
motion in  a very  real  way  unifies  the  administrative  ma- 
chinery, as  it  has  not  been  unified  before. 

As  to  organic  union  within  the  various  branches  of 
the  denominational  family,  the  so-called  Regular  Baptists 
and  the  so-called  Free  Baptists  some  time  ago  united  their 
general  work  as  a definite  step  toward  organic  union. 
There  has  still  to  come,  if  ever,  any  organic  union  of  the 
Northern  and  the  Southern  Baptist  Conventions.  The 
work  of  each  is  thoroughly  well  established  and  probably 
the  most  that  can  be  hoped  for  at  present  is  a spirit  of 
brotherliness  and  cooperation. 

2.  Attitude  toward  Cooperation 

The  denominational  consciousness  of  the  present  day 
is  strong,  but  it  is  not,  in  the  main,  a selfish  or  dogmatic 
consciousness.  The  great  Christian  denominations  have 
no  disposition  to  make  apology  for  their  existence  or 
their  organized  life,  but  they  eagerly  desire  and  definitely 
purpose  to  work  in  loving  and  whole-hearted  cooperation 
with  their  brethren  of  other  communions.  And  such  a 
spirit  as  this  is  a long  way  beyond  that  of  toleration. 
Toleration  is  a far  advance  on  intolerance,  but  toleration 
easily  becomes  indifference,  and  both  are  utterly  inade- 
quate to  express  the  ideal  relationship  between  bodies  of 
Christ’s  followers.  “Like  a mighty  army  moves  the 
Church  of  God.”  No  regimental  sacrifice  of  conviction, 
but  above  the  flag  of  the  regiment  the  flag  of  the  army; 
above  the  standard  of  the  denomination  the  banner  of  the 
Captain  of  the  host.  Not  intolerance,  not  toleration,  not 
indifference,  but  fellowship,  is  the  rallying  cry. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


73 


One  of  the  Christian  statesmen  of  the  day  has  said: 

“It  needs  no  prophet  to  foretell  that  this  movement  is 
bound  to  increase  in  volume  and  momentum.  Men  may 
question,  criticize,  and  resist  it,  but  it  can  no  more  be 
held  back  than  the  tides  of  the  sea.  There  are  tendencies 
at  work  which  make  this  inevitable.  Christian  laymen 
will  not  much  longer  be  patient  with  the  existing  condi- 
tions. The  most  discerning  Christian  ministers  are  them- 
selves earnest  in  their  advocacy  of  a change.  Surely  a 
closer  and  more  practical  drawing  together  of  the  dif- 
ferent bands  and  companies  of  His  followers  cannot  but 
be  pleasing  to  our  Lord  and  Master.  The  foreign  mis- 
sionary achievements  of  the  Church  in  Asia,  Africa,  and 
Latin  America  in  respect  to  division  of  the  field,  Chris- 
tian comity,  and  cooperative  effort,  have  been  such  as  to 
afford  convincing  and  inspiring  evidence  in  favor  of  the 
widespread  application  of  the  same  principles  and  meth- 
ods on  the  home  field.” 

It  is  perfectly  safe  to  say  that  such  a statement  repre- 
sents the  vast  preponderance  of  attitude  and  conviction 
in  the  membership  of  the  Northern  Baptist  Convention. 

So  much  misunderstanding  has  arisen  concerning  the 
action  of  the  Northern  Baptist  Convention  in  its  anni- 
versaries at  Buffalo  in  June,  1920,  terminating  its  official 
relation  with  the  Interchurch  World  Movement,  that  it 
may  be  worth  while  to  record  the  accompanying  resolu- 
tions, without  which  the  spirit  of  the  action  and  the  atti- 
tude of  the  Convention  cannot  be  rightly  understood. 
Those  resolutions  are  in  part  as  follows : 

“Resolved,  That  we  hereby  register  our  conviction 
that  the  evangelical  denominations  of  North  America 
have  and  hold  so  many  interests  in  common  that  they 
should  in  all  practicable  ways  cooperate  for  the  promo- 
tion of  their  common  purposes  and  the  accomplishment 
of  their  common  tasks,  and  that  we  do  now  and  herein 
reaffirm  our  earnest  desire  and  our  cordial  readiness  to 
continue  and  to  engage  in  such  cooperative  efforts  with 
other  evangelical  Protestant  denominations. 

“Resolved,  That  we  desire  to  reassure  our  brethren 
of  the  great  Protestant  bodies  with  whom  we  have 


74 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


for  the  last  year  been  associated  in  the  incorporated  or- 
ganization known  as  the  Interchurch  World  Movement 
of  our  fraternal  Christian  feeling  and  good  will,  and  that 
we  reaffirm  the  good  faith  and  fraternity  of  spirit  with 
which  under  the  Denver  resolutions  we  engaged  to  coop- 
erate in  the  organization  of  the  Interchurch  World  Move- 
ment, and  our  conviction  of  the  abiding  worth  of  the 
ideals  and  spirit  which  we  together  sought  to  embody  in 
this  organized  movement. 

“Resolved,  That  the  Convention  approve  the  contin- 
uance of  existing  relations  with  other  well-established 
interdenominational  agencies  and  that  the  General  Board 
of  Promotion  at  its  discretion  plan  for  further  coopera- 
tive promotional  work  with  other  evangelical  denomina- 
tions and  present  the  same  in  a report  to  the  Northern 
Baptist  Convention  of  1921.” 

3.  Attitude  toward  Organic  Union 

At  the  anniversaries  of  the  Northern  Baptist  Conven- 
tion held  in  Denver  in  May,  1919,  a statement  prepared 
by  a convention  committee  was  unanimously  adopted  as 
follows : 

“Whereas,  The  Northern  Baptist  Convention  has  been 
invited  to  send  delegates  to  a council  looking  toward 
organic  union  of  the  Protestant  denominations,  it  is 

“Resolved,  That  the  Northern  Baptist  Convention, 
while  maintaining  fraternal  relations  with  evangelical 
denominations  in  extending  the  influence  of  the  Gospel 
of  Jesus  Christ,  does  not  believe  that  organic  union  with 
other  denominations  is  possible.  It  therefore  declines  to 
send  delegates  to  the  proposed  council. 

“In  declining  this  invitation,  however,  Christian  cour- 
tesy demands  that  the  Northern  Baptist  Convention 
should  state  its  position  as  to  organic  union  with  other 
Christian  denominations.  This  we  make  not  with  any 
desire  to  pose  as  judge  of  our  Christian  brethren,  but  in 
the  interest  of  mutual  understanding. 

“The  Baptist  denomination  is  a collection  of  indepen- 
dent democratic  churches.  Not  one  of  these  churches 
recognizes  any  ecclesiastical  authority  superior  to  itself. 
They  are  grouped  in  associations,  state  conventions,  and 
a national  Convention,  but  none  of  these  groups  has  any 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


75 


control  over  a local  church  beyond  that  which  lies  in 
common  faith,  practice,  and  service.  The  denomination, 
in  so  far  as  it  has  unity,  is  a federation  of  independent 
democracies.  In  the  nature  of  the  case,  therefore,  any- 
thing like  organic  union  of  Baptist  Churches  with  other 
denominations  is  impossible.*  There  is  no  centralized 
body  that  could  deliver  Baptist  Churches  to  any  merger 
or  corporate  unity.  If  Baptist  Churches  do  not  have 
organic  unity  among  themselves,  they  obviously  cannot 
have  organic  unity  with  other  denominations.  By  the 
very  nature  of  our  organization,  we  are  stopped  from 
seeking  organic  union  with  other  denominations. 

“This  situation  does  not  arise  from  any  desire  on  our 
part  as  Baptists  to  withhold  ourselves  from  fellowship 
with  other  Christian  bodies  in  the  pursuance  of  Christian 
work.  Nor  does  it  arise  from  any  desire  to  impose  upon 
them  our  own  convictions.  We  grant  to  others  all  rights 
that  we  claim  for  ourselves.  But  the  liberty  of  conscience 
and  the  independence  of  the  churches  which  characterize 
our  position  are  involved  in  our  fundamental  conception 
as  to  the  nature  of  the  Church  and  of  its  relation  to  the 
religious  life. 

“We  believe  in  the  complete  competency  of  the  individ- 
ual to  come  directly  into  saving  relationship  with  God. 
We  hold  that  a church  is  a local  community  of  those 
who  have  consciously  committed  themselves  to  Jesus 
Christ.  The  only  Church  Universal  is,  in  our  belief, 
spiritual  fellowship  of  individual  souls  with  God.  We 
do  not  believe  in  any  form  of  sacerdotalism  or  sacramen- 
talism  among  Christians,  who  are  all  equally  priests  of 
the  Most  High.  We  reject  ecclesiastical  orders  and  hold 
that  all  believers  are  on  a spiritual  equality.  With  us 
ordination  is  only  a formal  recognition  on  the  part  of 
some  local  church  that  one  of  its  members  is  judged 
worthy  to  serve  as  a pastor.  The  fact  that  such  appoint- 
ment is  generally  recognized  in  all  our  churches  is  simply 
a testimony  to  denominational  good  faith. 

“We  cannot  modify  these  convictions  for  the  sake  of 
establishing  a corporate  unity  with  other  denominations. 
Any  compromise  at  this  point  would  be  an  abandonment 
of  structural  beliefs. 


6It  should  be  noted  that  in  this  resolution  “organic  union”  is 
used  in  a narrower  sense  than  in  this  report.  Cf.  pp.  194-202. 


76 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


“We  heartily  believe  in  the  necessity  of  a combined 
impact  of  Christian  forces  upon  the  evil  of  the  world. 
Such  impact,  however,  does  not  depend  for  its  efficiency 
upon  organic  union  of  the  churches.  We  are  convinced 
that  our  fundamental  conception  of  the  Church,  the 
nature  of  our  organization,  the  democracy  which  is  the 
very  basis  of  our  denominational  life,  make  any  organic 
union  with  groups  of  Christians  holding  opposite  views 
unwise  and  impossible.” 

At  the  same  anniversaries  of  the  Northern  Baptist 
Convention  held  in  Denver  a statement  prepared  by  the 
Convention  Committee  on  Faith  and  Order  was  unani- 
mously adopted.  It  bears  especially  upon  the  matter  of 
the  validity  of  ordination  to  the  Christian  ministry  and 
reads  as  follows : 

“In  the  year  1910,  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
America  requested  the  various  Protestant  denominations 
to  appoint  commissions  to  unite  with  it  in  calling  and 
arranging  for  a world  conference  to  discuss  the  ques- 
tions of  Christian  faith  and  order.  . . . Your  Commis- 
sion has  had  a number  of  informal  conferences  with 
representatives  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  Its  hope  is 
that  in  a world  conference  we  may  arrive  at  some  basis 
of  faith  and  order  upon  which  the  divided  Christian 
denominations  may  become  united  into  one  Church  of 
God,  and  present  a uniform  witness  of  the  Gospel  to  the 
world.  . . . From  meetings  thus  far  held  it  has  become  evi- 
dent to  your  Commission  that  the  Episcopal  Church 
stresses  the  necessity  of  Episcopal  ordination  as  a primal 
necessity  to  validate  the  exercise  of  the  ministry  in  the 
Church.  It  proposes,  however,  a concession  to  the  non- 
Episcopal  clergy  who  may  be  willing  to  accept  Episcopal 
ordination  at  the  hands  of  Episcopal  bishops.  Ministers 
of  other  denominations  seeking  such  ordination  shall  not 
be  required  to  accept  the  Episcopal  theory,  but  only  the 
fact  of  the  Episcopate.  It  differentiates  these  terms ; 
meaning  by  ‘theory’  the  doctrine  of  an  unbroken  historic 
succession  of  the  ministry  traceable  to  the  apostles; 
whereas  by  the  word  ‘fact’  it  means  that  the  Episcopal 
form  of  government  has  historically  vindicated  itself  as 
desirable  and  efficient.  In  thus  accepting  the  fact,  with- 
out the  theory,  it  hopes  that  the  non-Episcopal  churches, 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


77 


especially  the  ministers,  may  without  the  sacrifice  of  any 
vital  principle  see  their  way  clear  to  act  upon  the  ground 
of  expediency,  and  so  meet  what  is  to  the  Episcopal  com- 
munion a matter  of  conscience.  Your  Commission  has 
been  unequivocal  in  its  reply  to  these  propositions.  We 
have  said  to  the  Episcopal  Commission  with  utmost  can- 
dor that  the  trend  of  our  views  and  attitude  concerning 
ordinances,  sacraments,  and  ministry  of  the  Church  are 
at  such  variance  with  its  conceptions  that  we  are  con- 
vinced that  its  above-named  overtures  would  not  elicit 
the  interest,  much  less  a serious  consideration,  on  the 
part  of  our  Baptist  people.  On  these  grounds  there  is 
nothing  to  hope  for  in  the  direction  of  church  union.” 

From  the  above  statements  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is 
little  likelihood  that  the  churches  of  the  Northern  Baptist 
Convention  will  participate  in  a definite  movement  toward 
organic  church  union  at  this  time,  unless  the  conditions 
of  such  organic  union  are  materially  modified  from  those 
which  were  under  consideration  when  these  statements 
were  framed. 

But  the  task  before  the  Christian  Church  of  today  is 
too  great  for  any  one  denominational  body,  or  for  all  the 
denominational  bodies  acting  as  separate  units  without 
cooperative  planning  and  endeavor.  In  such  cooperation 
there  surely  is  warrant  for  saying  that  the  Northern  Bap- 
tist Convention  will  participate  fully  and  loyally. 

VI.  The  Presbyterian  Church  and  Unity 
I.  The  Unity  in  the  Presbyterian  Churches 

According  to  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  the 
Church  consists  of  “all  saints  that  are  united  to  Jesus 
Christ  their  head,”  the  bond  of  their  union  being  the 
indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  From  this  it  follows  that 
all  the  legitimate  manifestations  of  unity  are  referable 
to  the  Spirit’s  presence.  As  the  Holy  Spirit  is  our 
Teacher,  it  follows  that  all  true  Christians  agree  in  faith. 
As  He  is  our  Sanctifier,  all  those  in  whom  He  dwells 


78 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


agree  in  their  religious  experience  and  are  one  in  their 
inward  spiritual  life ; and  as  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Spirit 
of  Love,  the  command  of  Christ  to  His  disciples  to  love 
one  another  is  written  in  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

This  spiritual  principle  has  led  Presbyterians  to  unite 
for  the  purposes  of  Christian  worship,  and  to  organize 
congregations  for  mutual  watch  and  care,  for  the  exer- 
cise of  discipline,  and  for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel. 
Presbyterian  colonists  when  they  came  to  this  country 
united  with  existing  churches  in  New  England  or  founded 
distinctively  Presbyterian  Churches.  They  were  indepen- 
dent of  one  another  until  their  ministers  and  elders  came 
together  voluntarily  and  organized  a presbytery  in  1706. 
This  in  time  grew  to  a synod,  and  as  the  organization 
matured,  an  assembly  was  constituted  in  1788.  Accord- 
ing to  the  constitution  which  was  then  adopted,  the 
Assembly  was  made  “the  bond  of  union,  peace,  corre- 
spondence, and  mutual  confidence  among  all  our 
churches/' 

This  plan  of  organization  has  contributed  to  the  uni- 
fication of  all  the  administrative  work  of  the  church,  and 
each  benevolent  Board — as,  for  example,  Home  Missions, 
Foreign  Missions,  Education — is  controlled  by  the  entire 
church  through  the  agency  of  the  Assembly.  Of  late  the 
Woman’s  Home  and  Foreign  Mission  Boards,  acting 
hitherto  independently  of  the  Assembly,  have  become  its 
appointed  agencies.  In  order  to  unify  the  work  still  more 
effectively,  the  Executive  Commission  of  the  General 
Assembly  has  been  empowered  to  confer  with  and  advise 
the  permanent  benevolent  and  missionary  agencies  of  the 
church  and  to  take  such  action  as  may  be  necessary  to 
coordinate  and  unify  the  whole  benevolent  and  missionary 
work  of  the  church. 

The  Presbyterian  inheritance  which  is  expressed  in 
the  standards  of  the  church,  and  loyalty  to  which  con- 
stitutes the  inner  bond  among  Presbyterians,  embodies 
a certain  spirit,  to  be  found  no  doubt  in  other  churches, 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


79 


but  which  is  specifically  characteristic  of  Presbyterianism. 
This  spirit  may  be  called  the  Puritan  spirit,  which  in  its 
theology  is  Calvinistic  and  proclaims  the  rule  of  God 
in  all  departments  and  relationships  of  life,  which  in  its 
polity  stands  for  a representative  form  of  government, 
and  which  in  its  worship  and  life  advocates  simplicity 
and  freedom.  It  is  this  spirit  which  both  holds  Presby- 
terians together  and  enables  them  to  cooperate  readily 
with  all  who  are  seeking  to  establish  the  rule  of  God 
throughout  the  world. 

The  general  attitude  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  U.  S.  A.  regarding  Christian  unity  may  be  summed 
up  in  the  action  which  the  General  Assembly  has  taken 
from  year  to  year  and  which  is  as  follows : 

“The  Presbyterian  Church  holds  Christian  fellowship 
with  all  who  confess  and  obey  Jesus  Christ  as  their  divine 
Saviour  and  Lord,  and  acknowledges  the  duty  of  all 
churches  that  recognize  Him  as  the  only  Head  of  the 
Church  Universal  to  work  together  in  harmony  and  love 
for  the  extension  of  His  Kingdom  and  the  good  of  the 
world;  and  this  Assembly  earnestly  desires  to  commend 
and  promote  this  Christian  cooperation,  and  also  practi- 
cally to  advance  the  cause  of  church  union  by  confedera- 
tion, and,  where  possible,  by  consolidation  among  the 
churches  of  the  Reformed  Faith,  which  are  most  nearly 
akin  in  doctrine  and  organization.” 

For  the  past  seventeen  years  a permanent  Committee 
on  Church  Cooperation  and  Union  has  been  at  work  un- 
der these  official  instructions  from  the  General  Assembly : 

“Resolved,  I.  That  a Committee  be  appointed  by  the 
Moderator  to  consider  the  whole  subject  of  cooperation 
and  confederation  and  consolidation  with  other  churches. 

“Resolved,  2.  That  this  Committee  be  instructed  to 
enter  into  correspondence  with  any  churches  of  the  Re- 
formed family  with  whom,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Com- 
mittee, such  correspondence  would  be  likely  to  promote 
closer  relations. 

“Resolved,  3.  That  this  Committee  shall  report  to 
the  next  Assembly  such  plans  and  measures  as  seem  to 


8o 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


them  wise,  proper,  and  profitable  for  the  advancement 
of  fraternal  relations,  for  the  increase  of  harmonious 
work,  and,  if  God  shall  open  the  way,  and  incline  the 
hearts  of  the  churches  thereto,  for  the  reunion  of  those 
who  hold  the  same  faith  and  order  in  the  service  of 
Christ.” 

As  a result  of  the  Committee’s  negotiations,  organic 
union  with  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church  was 
effected  in  1905.  At  the  meeting  of  the  last  Assembly 
(May,  1920)  the  Welsh  Calvinistic  Methodist  Church, 
with  a communicant  membership  of  approximately 
1 S,ooo,  was  received  into  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  U.  S.  A. 

For  the  past  ten  years  a Council  of  the  Reformed  and 
Presbyterian  Churches  has  been  in  continuous  opera- 
tion. Through  it  the  constituent  bodies  have  become  bet- 
ter acquainted  with  one  another  and  have  agreed  upon 
rules  of  comity  and  methods  of  cooperation  in  benevolent 
and  missionary  work.  Meanwhile,  promising  negotiations 
for  closer  union  have  been  carried  on  between  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  the  U.  S.  A.  and  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  U.  S.,  and  also  the  Reformed  Church  in 
the  U.  S.  The  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the 
U.  S.  at  its  meeting  in  June,  1920,  authorized  its  Com- 
mittee on  Church  Union  to  carry  on  negotiations  with 
the  Presbyterian  Committee  on  Church  Cooperation  and 
Union  with  a view  to  the  consolidation  of  the  two  bodies. 

Growing  out  of  the  Council  of  the  Reformed  and 
Presbyterian  Churches  a movement  has  been  inaugurated 
almost  simultaneously  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the 
U.  S.  A.,  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  U.  S.,  the  Re- 
formed Church  in  the  U.  S.,  the  United  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  the  Reformed  Church  in  America,  in  the 
direction  of  closer  relations  and  a more  effective  mis- 
sionary cooperation.  A tentative  Plan  of  Union  has  been 
approved,  whereby  a United  Assembly  is  to  be  consti- 
tuted with  the  title  of  “The  United  Assembly  of  the 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


81 


Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Churches  of  the  United 
States  of  America”  which  shall  represent  in  one  body 
all  the  churches  united  therein  and  shall  constitute  the 
bond  of  union,  peace,  and  correspondence  among  all  the 
congregations  and  courts  of  the  constituent  churches. 
It  is  to  be  the  declarative,  executive,  administrative,  and 
judicial  agency  of  the  united  churches,  and  shall  possess 
such  ecclesiastical  powers  as  are  to  be  delegated  to  it 
when  the  cooperating  churches  shall  have  agreed  upon 
a constitution.  This  movement  gives  hope  that  in  the 
not  far  distant  future  the  leading  Presbyterian  and  Re- 
formed Churches  will  be  united  in  one  Christian 
communion. 

2.  Attitude  toward  a More  Inclusive  Union 

The  third  resolution  of  the  General  Assembly,  quoted 
above,  authorizing  the  appointment  of  the  Committee  on 
Cooperation  and  Union,  included  an  official  declaration 
of  hope  for  the  reunion  of  all  “those  who  hold  the  same 
faith  and  order  in  the  service  of  Christ.”  The  Assem- 
bly, consequently,  responded  promptly  to  the  invitation 
to  share  in  the  proposed  World  Conference  on  Faith  and 
Order,  approving  “the  steps  thus  far  taken  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Church  Cooperation  and  Union  in  the  matter.” 

In  the  Assembly  of  1918  overtures  were  received  from 
various  presbyteries  concerning  the  organic  union  of  all 
American  evangelical  churches  and  petitioning  the  As- 
sembly, 

“That  it  overture  the  national  bodies  of  our  sister  com- 
munions to  hear  and  prayerfully  consider  a program  for 
church  union. 

“That  the  General  Assembly  name  a time  and  place, 
as  early  as  possible,  for  an  interdenominational  council 
of  evangelical  churches. 

“That  our  Assembly  state  frankly  in  this  call,  that  the 
purpose  of  the  Council  is  to  discuss,  and  if  the  way  be 
clear,  to  adopt  a definite  plan  of  organic  church  union.” 


82 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


In  recommending  action  thereon  the  following  resolu- 
tion was  adopted : 

“The  Committee  on  Bills  and  Overtures,  before  recom- 
mending action,  desires  to  congratulate  the  General  As- 
sembly and  through  it  the  whole  church,  that  these  over- 
tures show  that  there  is  an  earnest  desire  for  church  unity 
growing  in  power  in  the  hearts  of  many,  and  a determined 
effort  put  forth  to  accomplish  the  same. 

“It  is  to  be  noted  that  our  church  has  long  been  for- 
ward in  its  expression  and  effort  looking  toward  the 
reunion  and  union  of  the  evangelical  churches  of 
America. 

“The  Committee  recommends  the  following  action : 

(1)  That  we,  the  Commissioners  to  the  One  Hundred 
and  Thirtieth  General  Assembly,  now  in  session  at  Colum- 
bus, Ohio,  do  declare  and  place  on  record  our  profound 
conviction  that  the  time  has  come  for  organic  jchurch 
union  of  the  evangelical  churches  of  America. 

(2)  That  this  Assembly  hereby  overtures  the  national 
bodies  of  the  evangelical  communions  of  America  to  meet 
with  our  representatives  for  the  purpose  of  formulating 
a plan  of  organic  union.” 

Following  this  action  the  Committee  on  Church  Coop- 
eration and  Union  took  the  lead  in  convening  the  Council 
on  Organic  Union  which  assembled  in  Philadelphia,  Feb- 
ruary 3 to  6,  1920.  The  Plan  of  Union  for  Evangelical 
Churches  in  the  U.  S.  A.  which  was  then  formulated  was 
approved  by  the  last  General  Assembly  and  ordered  to 
be  sent  down  to  the  presbyteries  for  their  action.* 

Concerning  the  special  question  of  organic  union  on 
the  foreign  field  the  following  action  was  taken  at  the 
Post-War  Conference  held  in  Princeton,  June  19  to  28, 
1920,  when  the  twenty-seven  missions  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  were  represented : 

“We  gladly  record  our  gratification  that  our  Board  is 
now  working  in  cooperation  with  at  least  twenty-nine 
other  Boards  in  various  fields,  and  is  in  organic  coopera- 

*The  Plan  of  Union  is  printed  as  Appendix  II  of  this  report. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


83 


tion  in  at  least  forty-four  educational  institutions,  and 
that  the  definitely  established  policy  of  the  General  As- 
sembly and  the  Board  is  that  expressed  in  the  action  of 
the  Board,  May  15,  1900,  and  specifically  approved  by 
the  General  Assembly  of  that  year,  as  follows : 

“ ‘Believing  that  the  time  has  come  for  a yet  larger 
measure  of  union  and  cooperation  in  mission  work,  the 
Board  would  ask  the  General  Assembly  to  approve  its 
course  in  recommending  to  its  missions  in  various  lands 
(in  line  with  the  General  Assembly’s  action  of  1887,  Min- 
utes p.  23,  having  in  view  building  up  independent  na- 
tional churches  holding  to  the  Reformed  doctrine  and  the 
Presbyterian  polity)  that  they  encourage  as  far  as  prac- 
ticable the  formation  of  union  churches,  in  which  the 
results  of  the  mission  work  of  all  allied  evangelical 
churches  should  be  gathered,  and  that  they  observe  every- 
where the  most  generous  principles  of  missionary  com- 
ity ; and,  further,  it  is  voted  that  the  Board  now  adopt  the 
statement  of  policy  prepared  by  its  special  Committee  on 
Policy  and  Method,  and  submitted  to  many  of  the  mis- 
sionaries and  approved  by  them,  as  follows : 

“ ‘In  the  view  of  the  Board,  the  object  of  the  for- 
eign missionary  enterprise  is  not  to  perpetuate  on 
the  mission  field  the  denominational  distinctions  of 
Christendom,  but  to  build  up  on  scriptural  lines,  and 
according  to  scriptural  principles  and  methods,  the 
Kingdom  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Where  church 
union  cannot  be  attained,  the  Board  and  missions  will 
seek  such  divisions  of  territory  as  will  leave  as  large 
districts  as  possible  to  the  exclusive  care  and  devel- 
opment of  separate  agencies.  It  is  believed  that  in 
other  regards  also  missionary  comity  should  be  given 
large  range.  . . . Fellowship  and  union  among  native 
Christians  of  whatever  name  should  be  encouraged 
in  every  possible  way,  with  a view  to  that  unity  of  all 
disciples  for  which  our  Lord  prayed,  and  to  which 
all  mission  effort  should  contribute.’  ” 

VII.  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  and 
Unity 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  offers  no  exception 
to  the  general  observation  that  men  who  were  actively 
interested  in  church  unity  previous  to  the  War  are  more 


84 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


deeply  interested  in  it  now,  while  those  who  were  then 
conscientiously  sectarian  are  even  more  conscientiously 
so  at  present.  There  are  those  within  the  Episcopal 
Church  who  would  go  to  the  extreme  limit  of  useful  sac- 
rifice if  through  any  effort  of  theirs  the  churches  might 
be  drawn  more  closely  together ; there  are  others,  equally 
earnest,  who  would  welcome  unity  if  other  communions 
would  accept  the  polity  and  point  of  view  of  Episco- 
palianism. 

There  are,  however,  certain  signs  of  a desire  for  union 
which  are  more  or  less  characteristic  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  general.  They  may  be  divided  into  three 
classes : signs  that  the  Episcopal  Church  is  already  some- 
what of  a microcosm  of  church  unity;  signs  that  it  is 
interested  in  a larger  and  more  comprehensive  unity  chan 
now  exists ; signs  that  it  is  taking  steps  toward  an  actual 
union. 

i.  Signs  that  the  Episcopal  Church  Is  Already  Some- 
what of  a Microcosm  of  Church  Unity 

In  its  organization  it  has,  as  closely  as  possible,  con- 
formed to  a kind  of  federal  system.  The  framers  of  its 
constitution,  being  also  in  certain  instances  either  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  or  in 
close  association  with  them,  naturally  leaned  toward  the 
federal  idea.  As  in  the  national  organization  so  in  the 
ecclesiastical,  the  will  of  the  smallest  unit  is  carried  higher 
until  it  reaches  the  center,  and,  vice  versa,  the  decisions 
of  the  executive  are  submitted  to  the  component  parts  of 
the  church.  The  will  of  the  people  is  expressed  in  the 
clergy,  wardens,  and  vestry  of  the  parish ; the  will  of  the 
parish  is  voiced  in  its  clerical  and  lay  delegates  to  the 
diocesan  convention ; the  will  of  the  diocese  is  expressed 
in  the  clerical  and  lay  delegates  to  the  triennial  conven- 
tion of  the  entire  church.  The  church,  therefore,  while 
preserving  in  great  detail  parochial  and  diocesan  freedom, 
recognizes  a central  deliberative  authority.  It  is  the 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


85 


replica  of  city,  state,  and  nation.  The  recently  formed 
organization  called  the  Presiding  Bishop  and  Council 
further  unifies  the  church  in  the  practical  despatch  of  the 
will  of  the  Convention.  Under  its  immediate  direction 
are  placed  the  missionary,  the  educational,  and  the  social 
activities  of  the  church.  It  will  be  readily  seen, 
therefore,  that  the  widest  margin  of  local  freedom  is 
secured  while  a very  real  central  authority  is  maintained. 

In  the  matter  of  the  liturgy  a wide  latitude  is  con- 
sciously and  unconsciously  allowed  in  the  interpretation 
of  its  formularies.  From  an  historical  point  of  view  such 
a latitude  was  evidently  in  the  intention  of  the  compilers 
of  the  Prayer  Book.  Actual  signs  of  such  intention  may 
be  seen,  for  example,  in  the  use  or  in  the  omission  of  the 
sign  of  the  cross  in  baptism,  and  in  the  permissible  alter- 
native of  pouring  or  immersion;  in  the  substitution  of 
“He  went  into  the  place  of  departed  spirits”  for  “He  de- 
scended into  hell”  in  the  Apostles’  Creed ; in  the  more  and 
less  priestly  sentences  used  by  the  bishop  in  the  ordination 
of  priests.  Actual  evidence  of  such  latitude  may  be  found 
in  almost  any  congregation.  It  is  a well-known  fact  that 
many  people  ally  themselves  with  the  Episcopal  Church 
simply  because  they  like  the  Prayer  Book  form  of  wor- 
ship, unaware  of  any  demand  the  Prayer  Book  may  make 
upon  them;  there  are  others  who  interpret  literally  and 
still  others  figuratively;  there  are  those  to  whom  the 
Apostles’  and  Nicene  Creeds  appear  as  literal  statements, 
and  there  are  those  to  whom  they  are  more  in  the  realm 
of  poetry. 

Another  sign  that  the  Episcopal  Church  is  already 
somewhat  of  a microcosm  of  church  unity  appears  in  the 
actual  varieties  of  faith  within  it.  Within  the  same  con- 
gregation there  are  people  who  look  upon  the  office  of 
bishop  as  essential  to  the  being  of  the  church,  and  people 
who  regard  it  as  a useful  institution  that  has  stood  the 
test  of  time.  There  are  some  whose  conception  of  the  sac- 
rament of  the  Holy  Communion  approaches  that  of  the 


86 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Romanists,  others  who  believe  in  consubstantiation,  others 
in  the  so-called  spiritual  presence,  others  still  who  hold 
the  memorial  view.  Also  with  regard  to  the  conception 
of  God  points  of  view  differ  as  widely  as  the  poles.  The 
Incarnation  is  accepted  as  a matter  of  course.  But  the 
implications  of  the  Incarnation  as  to  the  person  of  Christ 
vary  with  the  temperaments  of  individuals.  For  some 
the  Incarnation  and  the  Virgin  Birth  are  inseparable,  for 
others  they  are  separable ; for  certain  types  of  mind  Jesus 
is  the  perfect  man  and  therefore  one  with  God,  for  con- 
trary types  of  mind  He  is  almost  indistinguishable  from 
God.  Some  worshipers  regard  the  trinitarian  phraseol- 
ogy as  language  of  theological  exactness,  while  others  use 
the  words  because  they  describe,  as  well  as  words  can, 
their  religious  emotions. 

In  fact,  it  would  seem  that  practically  all  types  of  reli- 
gion and  theology  might  be  found  within  the  Episcopal 
Church  at  present.  All  the  way  from  a faith  that  closely 
resembles  the  more  richly  emotional  kinds  of  Unitarian- 
ism,  to  the  faith  that  is  closely  akin  to  Romanism,  differ- 
ing from  it  only  in  its  refusal  to  acknowledge  the  Pope, 
the  variations  range.  To  say  that  a man  is  an  Episco- 
palian is  by  no  means  to  indicate  whether  he  does  or  does 
not  believe  in  baptismal  regeneration,  what  is  his  partic- 
ular view  of  the  episcopacy,  what  kind  of  a sacramentalist 
he  is,  or  what  are  the  refinements  of  his  idea  of  God. 
The  Episcopal  Church  includes  manifold  temperaments 
and  manifold  points  of  view. 

2.  Signs  that  the  Episcopal  Church  Is  Interested  in  a 
Larger  and  More  Inclusive  Union  than  Now  Exists 

If  it  may  be  assumed  at  the  outset  that  evidence  is 
drawn  from  theory  and  practice  within  the  church  rather 
than  from  any  pronouncements  of  an  official  character, 
and  if  certain  tendencies  within  the  English  Church  may 
be  included  as  germane,  it  may  be  said  that  church  union 
of  a limited  kind  is  already  in  operation.  The  war  found 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


87 


the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country  working  with  many 
other  communions  through  the  General  Wartime  Com- 
mission. This  was  clearly  indicative  of  a recognition  of 
practical  unity  for  a common  aim.  For  many  years  cer- 
tain types  of  churchmen  have  counted  on  their  neighbors 
of  other  communions  for  addresses,  particularly  in  Lent, 
and  occasionally  for  sermons.  The  permission  of  the 
bishop  is  required ; it  is  seldom  refused.  It  is  the  prac- 
tice in  many  churches  to  invite  to  the  sacrament  mem- 
bers of  any  communions.  This  custom  is  seldom  inter- 
fered with.  Such  examples  as  these  are  not  uncommon ; 
they  bear  witness  to  the  desire  for  a legal  warrant  for  a 
widespread  practice. 

More  than  this,  however.  Scholarship  of  recent  years 
has  seemed  to  point  to  the  conclusion  that  unity  may  in- 
here in  faith  rather  than  in  polity.  Research  in  first 
century  church  government  has  persuaded  at  least  some 
of  the  more  advanced  churchmen  that  the  apostolic  fel- 
lowship found  its  life  in  correct  thinking  in  regard  to 
God  and  Christ,  rather  than  in  holding  to  an  especial 
form  of  government,  precious  though  that  form  might 
be.  There  is  said  to  be  a strong  movement  in  this  direc- 
tion in  England  at  the  present  time.1  If  such  a tendency 
gathers  headway  it  will  but  corroborate  the  conviction 
which  large  numbers  of  churchmen  have  always  had — 
that,  important  though  forms  of  government  may  be, 
they  are  of  secondary  value.  There  is  great  promise,  in  a 
movement  of  this  kind,  that  the  church  at  large  may  find 
itself  ready  to  unite  with  those  whose  catholicity  inheres 
in  their  religion.  At  any  rate,  it  may  easily  be  seen  that 
scholarship  is  seeking  the  true  basis  of  Catholicism  rather 
than  sanctions  for  particular  points  of  view. 

Religion  also  is  coming  to  the  assistance  of  scholarship. 

’This  section  was  written  before  the  Lambeth  statement  on 
reunion  was  issued.  That  statement,  printed  as  Appendix  III 
to  this  report,  should  be  read  in  connection  with  this  discus- 
sion of  the  attitude  of  the  Episcopal  Church, 


88 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Until  quite  recently  full  church  membership  depended 
upon  confirmation.  To  be  sure,  a baptized  person  was  rec- 
ognized as  a member  of  Christ.  But  until  that  person 
had  taken  upon  himself  his  baptismal  promises  and  had 
received  the  episcopal  laying-on-of-hands  he  was  not  a 
church  member.  This  conception  is  gradually  changing. 
Baptism  in  the  three-fold  name  may  yet  be  accepted  as 
the  basis  of  universal  church  membership.  If  so,  prob- 
lems of  an  exclusively  episcopal  character  will  fall  into 
the  background. 

3.  Signs  that  the  Episcopal  Church  Is  Actually  Taking 
Steps  toward  Real  Union 

At  least  forty  years  ago  a movement  was  set  on  foot 
by  William  R.  Huntington  toward  allowing  such  non- 
episcopalian churches  as  cared  to  do  so  to  place  them- 
selves under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  local  bishop  and  be 
considered  part  of  the  church  over  which  he  was  in 
authority.  The  attempt  came  to  nothing.  The  proposed 
Concordat  between  Congregationalists  and  Episcopalians, 
whereby  Congregational  ministers  shall  receive  episcopal 
ordination  and  at  the  same  time  shall  retain  all  the  essen- 
tial features  of  their  own  church,  is  but  a second  and  pos- 
sibly more  advanced  chapter  of  the  same  bit  of  history. 
Both  of  these  movements,  as  well  as  participation  in  the 
work  of  the  Conference  on  Faith  and  Order,  are  earnest 
attempts  on  the  part  of  Episcopalians  to  secure  a work- 
ing union  in  which  the  convictions  of  those  who  hold 
that  episcopacy  is  essential  to  the  being  of  the  Church 
shall  be  respected,  while  the  feelings  of  others  who  look 
upon  it  as  a useful  institution  only  shall  not  be  offended. 
It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  friends  and  enemies  of 
the  plan  may  not  be  separated  along  lines  of  churchman- 
ship. 

It  is  also  interesting  to  see  on  what  cordial  and  mutu- 
ally trustful  terms  certain  leaders  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  are  working  with  others  along  moral  and  religious 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


89 


lines.  Reports  from  the  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches 
of  Christ  in  America  show  how  enthusiastically  some  of 
the  clergy  and  bishops  of  the  Episcopal  Church  are  not 
only  participating  in  local  interchurch  work,  but  are  even 
taking  positions  of  leadership  in  such  useful  enterprises. 
Reports  from  the  lumber  camps  of  the  Northwest  and 
from  frontier  work  elsewhere  bear  witness  to  a willing- 
ness on  the  part  of  many  Episcopalians  to  cooperate  on 
the  basis  of  certain  working  fundamentals,  allowing  the 
exigencies  of  the  situation  to  take  precedence  of  certain 
precious  methods  of  religious  procedure. 

Possibly  the  most  significant  movement  toward  real 
union  is  coming  from  the  mission  field.  Sections  of  the 
same  communion  are  uniting  as,  for  example,  the 
Anglican  Church  and  the  American  Episcopal  Church. 
Beyond  this,  however,  missionary  bishops  and  others  are 
coming  to  the  conclusion  that  the  doctrine  of  common 
sense  is  one  of  the  notes  of  Catholicism,  and  that  it  en- 
tails Christian  fellowship  and  a working  union,  what- 
ever the  theoretical  objections  may  be.  Simply  because 
disunion  defeats  the  purpose  of  missions  and  thereby  be- 
comes heresy,  the  orthodoxy  of  union  is  made  apparent. 
It  looks  as  if  Gordian  knots  would  be  cut.  Too  much 
time  has  been  conscientiously  wasted  in  trying  to  untie 
them. 

It  lends  little  to  the  discussion  of  the  larger  problems 
of  union  to  say  that  definite  progress  is  being  achieved  in 
drawing  together  all  Episcopal  Churches,  save  the  Ro- 
man. Overtures  are  at  present  being  made  between  the 
Anglican  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Churches  on  the 
one  hand  and  the  Greek  and  Russian  Churches  on  the 
other.  A report  favorable  to  intercommunion  was  made 
shortly  before  the  war  by  a commission  representing  the 
Anglican,  the  Protestant  Episcopal,  and  the  Swedish 
Churches.  From  time  to  time  the  Old  Catholics  and 
Anglicans  of  all  branches  show  signs  of  fundamental 
sympathy.  All  of  these,  however,  being  episcopal,  are 


90 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


rendered  free  of  obstacles  supposed  to  be  fundamental. 
While  they  furnish  interesting  evidence  of  the  attain- 
ment of  a greater  degree  of  real  union,  they  do  not  repre- 
sent the  critical  problem.  Definite  advances  have  been 
made  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  by  the  Anglican  and 
Protestant  Episcopal  Churches.  The  former  insists, 
however,  upon  submission  to  unaltered  Romanism  as  the 
sine  qua  non  of  union. 

VIII.  Other  Churches  and  the  Problem  of  Unity 

In  this  chapter  we  have  thus  far  considered  only 
seven  of  the  large  groups  within  American  Christianity, 
but  in  a general  way  it  may  be  said  that  the  denominations 
here  discussed  are  fairly  representative  of  most  of  the 
other  Protestant  bodies.  To  this  statement,  however,  at 
least  three  important  exceptions  need  to  be  noted. 

There  is  in  the  first  place  what  we  might  term  “the  ex- 
treme right”  of  American  Protestantism,  the  stricter 
group  within  the  Southern  Baptist  Convention.  Since  a 
later  section  will  analyze  the  implications  of  the  more 
uncompromising  Southern  Baptist  conception  of  the 
Church,  we  need  here  only  say  that  their  rigid  insistence 
upon  the  local  congregation  as  the  only  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority, upon  immersion  as  the  only  valid  form  of  bap- 
tism, upon  a strict  interpretation  of  certain  other  doc- 
trines, and  upon  complete  freedom  from  central  control 
of  any  kind  has  led  them  generally  to  take  so  undeviating 
a position  of  entire  independence  that  they  have  been 
unrepresented  in  the  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of 
Christ  in  America  and  in  most  other  cooperative  endeav- 
ors. During  the  war,  however,  the  Southern  Baptist 
Convention  cooperated  in  the  work  of  the  General  War- 
Time  Commission  of  the  Churches,  and  such  beginnings 
in  a concrete  way  afford  a hope  for  larger  cooperation 
in  the  future. 

At  the  extreme  “left”  of  American  Protestantism  are 
the  Unitarian  Churches,  again  affording  a special  prob- 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


9i 


lem  in  connection  with  church  unity.  Here  the  prob- 
lem is  the  reverse  of  that  presented  by  the  Southern  Bap- 
tists, for  the  Unitarians,  it  may  be  safely  said,  stand  ready 
to  cooperate  with  other  churches  while  some,  at  least,  of 
the  other  churches  are  very  hesitant  about  such  coopera- 
tion. But  here,  too,  the  measure  of  cooperation  already 
entered  upon  in  specific  instances  suggests  the  possibility 
of  a larger  future  cooperation  in  matters  that  do  not  in- 
volve doctrinal  considerations.  In  certain  of  the  local 
federations  of  churches  Unitarians  now  participate,  and 
during  the  war  the  recommendation  of  Unitarian  chap- 
lains to  the  War  Department  was  through  the  agency  of 
the  Federal  Council’s  General  Committee  on  Army  and 
Navy  Chaplains. 

Concerning  one  other  Protestant  body  a word  should 
be  said,  the  Friends.  Representing  an  extreme  emphasis 
upon  the  supremacy  of  the  individual  conscience  and  dis- 
pensing with  sacraments  and  a paid  ministry,  they  have 
naturally  given  less  attention  than  other  groups  to  insti- 
tutional religious  life,  whether  denominational  or  inter- 
denominational. They  are,  however,  one  of  the  constitu- 
ent members  of  the  Federal  Council.  There  is,  moreover, 
a growing  tendency  to  closer  organization  among  the 
Friends,  a notable  illustration  being  the  American 
Friends’  Service  Committee,  which  has  carried  on  a work 
that,  in  proportion  to  numbers  and  financial  strength,  no 
doubt  surpasses  that  of  any  other  war-time  agency. 

The  Salvation  Army  is  another  important  group,  less 
easy  to  classify  but  requiring  consideration.  Here  is  a 
great  Christian  movement  built  up  on  the  principle  of 
that  complete  consecration  which  characterizes  the 
monastic  orders  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  yet,  un- 
like them,  making  provision  for  family  life.  Whether  it 
is  more  correctly  to  be  regarded  as  a denomination  or  as 
an  undenominational  agency  has  not  been  entirely  clear. 
If  membership  in  it  is  to  be  accepted  as  a substitute  for 
membership  in  one  of  the  regular  denominations — which 


92 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


seems  now  to  be  the  case — it  becomes  practically  another 
denomination.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  were  to  be  re- 
garded like  the  Y M C A,  as  a supplementary  agency  for 
specialized  service,  its  logical  place  in  the  present  study 
is  in  a later  chapter.8  In  response  to  an  inquiry  as  to  how 
the  Salvation  Army  regards  itself,  one  of  its  high  officials 
writes  that  it  “is  a Christian  denomination  very  undenom- 
inational and  extra-denominational  in  many  of  its 
practices.” 

Most  difficult  of  all,  of  course,  is  the  question  of  the 
relations  between  the  Protestant  Churches  and  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church.  The  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  by  which  religious  liberty  was  guaranteed 
to  all  its  citizens,  saw  the  Roman  Church  but  scantily  rep- 
resented in  the  original  thirteen  states.  More  than  15,000 
of  the  fewer  than  25,000  Catholics  then  in  the  Union  were 
to  be  found  in  Maryland.  While  Catholics  were  still  un- 
der local  political  disabilities  in  several  of  the  states  till 
well  into  the  nineteenth  century,  the  earlier  Roman  priests 
were  received  in  some  Protestant  communities,  and  even 
by  Protestant  ministers,  with  a good  deal  of  personal 
friendliness.  By  1830,  however,  immigration  was  rapidly 
augmenting  the  Roman  Catholic  population.  It  is  sup- 
posed to  have  reached  1,000,000  by  1840.  With  this 
growth  came  religious  conflicts,  generally  intensified  by 
racial  antagonism.  These  feelings  were  further  intensi- 
fied by  the  political  contests,  especially  in  the  large  eastern 
cities,  between  the  foreign  (largely  Roman  Catholic) 
elements  and  the  Native- American  Party  from  1841  to 
1847,  an(J  the  Know  Nothing  Party  in  the  years  between 
1852  and  the  Civil  War. 

Since  the  Civil  War  an  increasing  toleration  has  suc- 
ceeded the  suspicion  and  hostility  of  the  preceding  dec- 
ades, and  this  state  of  relations  has  been  greatly  aided  by 
the  tacit  abandonment  of  all  considerable  proselyting  at- 
tempts. In  general,  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants 


*Cf .,  p.  125  of  this  report. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


93 


have  respected  each  other’s  constituencies  and  have  made 
relatively  slight  attempts  to  win  from  the  one  fold  to  the 
other.  The  result  has  been  a mutual  toleration  and  a 
growing  regard.  The  chief  field  of  friction  in  recent 
years  has  been  regarding  public  education.  Popular  feel- 
ing, as  represented  by  the  majority,  has  insisted  on  pub- 
lic schools  maintained  by  general  taxation.  Roman  Cath- 
olic conviction  has  emphasized  parochial  schools,  educa- 
tion in  which  is  usually  recognized  as  meeting  the  re- 
quirements of  the  State.  Paying  for  these  parochial 
schools  themselves,  Catholics  have  regarded  the  require- 
ment of  taxation  to  support  the  public  schools  as  a bur- 
den, and  have  desired  either  relief  or  the  diversion  of  a 
portion  of  the  public  money  to  the  maintenance  of  their 
parochial  schools. 

Those  who  hold,  as  do  Roman  Catholics,  recognition  of 
the  spiritual  authority  of  the  Pope  a prerequisite  to  reun- 
ion, and  those  who  reject  that  authority,  as  do  Protes- 
tants, have  no  common  basis  of  union  which  can  now  be 
proposed.8  That  fundamental  divergence  does  not  pre- 
vent, however,  the  possibility  of  an  increasing  measure  of 
cooperation  and  mutual  recognition.  Some  evidences 
of  such  an  attitude  are  to  be  seen.  Cardinal  Gibbons  and 
Archbishop  Ireland  took  part  in  the  Parliament  of  Reli- 
gions at  the  Chicago  Exposition  in  1893.  In  various  cities 
Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants  have  occasionally  la- 
bored together  officially,  as  religious  bodies,  to  secure 
better  moral  conditions  of  civic  life  and  to  aid  in  epi- 
demics which  threatened  public  health.  In  Cincinnati  a 
joint  commission  representing  the  Federation  of  Protest- 
ant Churches  and  the  Federated  Catholic  Societies  met 
with  a series  of  successes  in  dealing  with  commercial 
amusements.  In  the  spring  of  1916  Bishop  McGolrick 
joined  with  the  Interchurch  Council  of  Duluth  and  other 

“The  recent  declination  of  the  Pope  to  participate  in  the  World 
Conference  on  Faith  and  Order  is  noted  elsewhere  in  this  report. 
See  page  161. 


94 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


forces  to  make  the  city  “dry.”  In  Louisville  the  Roman 
Catholics  cooperated  in  securing  the  appointment  of  a 
vice  commission.10  In  the  same  city,  when  the  churches 
were  closed  during  an  influenza  epidemic,  the  Roman 
Catholic  bishop  joined  with  the  Protestants  in  an  appeal 
for  religious  observance  in  the  homes.  At  Easter  time, 
1920,  in  Detroit  the  Holy  Name  Society  and  the  Council 
of  Churches  united  in  an  appeal  to  the  city  administration 
to  request  the  closing  of  all  business  houses  for  three 
hours  on  Good  Friday.  In  the  summer  of  1920  the  Social 
Service  Commission  of  the  Federal  Council  of  the 
Churches  and  the  National  Catholic  Welfare  Council 
joined  in  giving  assistance  to  an  investigation  of  the  Den- 
ver tramway  strike,  at  the  request  of  a local  commission 
including  both  Protestants  and  Catholics. 

During  the  World  War  there  were  numberless  in- 
stances in  which  Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant  chap- 
lains worked  together  in  a fraternal  spirit.  Catholic 
clergy  and  Protestant  ministers  joined  in  public  com- 
munity services  of  thanksgiving,  celebrating  the  success- 
ful conclusion  of  the  struggle. 

The  most  comprehensive  attempt  at  practical  coopera- 
tion between  Catholics  and  Protestants  during  the  war, 
if  not  during  American  history,  was  the  work  of  the 
so-called  “Committee  of  Six.”  The  Committee  was  the 
outcome  of  an  informal  conference  in  October,  1917,  at 
which  representatives  of  the  General  War-Time  Commis- 
sion of  the  Churches,  the  National  War  Work  Council 
of  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association,  the  National 
Catholic  War  Council,  and  the  Jewish  Welfare  Board 
participated  in  considering  what  should  be  done  to  safe- 
guard the  moral  welfare  of  the  soldiers.  It  was  recog- 
nized by  the  Secretary  of  War  “as  an  Advisory  Commit- 
tee to  confer  with  the  Government  on  matters  relating 
to  the  religious  interests  of  the  Army.”  It  was  explicitly 

'"Guild,  Roy  B.,  “Practicing  Christian  Unity,”  pp.  10,  21,  53. 
New  York,  1919. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


95 


stated  by  the  Committee  that  its  functions  were  “purely 
unofficial  and  advisory  and  that  the  organizations  to 
which  members  belong  . . . are  in  no  wise  committed  by 
the  action  of  the  Committee.”  Several  meetings  were  held 
between  October,  1917,  and  July,  1918,  and  important 
recommendations  were  made  to  the  War  Department  con- 
cerning the  appointment  of  chaplains,  the  chaplains’  train- 
ing school,  and  legislation  concerning  chaplains.  Thir- 
teen meetings  were  held  in  all  and  the  relations  of  the 
members  of  the  Committee  were  marked  to  a notable  de- 
gree by  mutual  confidence  and  good  will.  The  fact  that 
the  members  of  the  Committee  were  not  authorized  to  act 
in  a representative  capacity,  and  the  complex  situation 
created  by  the  action  of  the  War  Department  in  termi- 
nating the  services  of  the  “camp  pastors,”  with  the  mis- 
taken impression  in  some  quarters  that  the  Committee  of 
Six  was  partly  responsible  for  the  step,  were  the  chief 
factors  standing  in  the  way  of  its  further  functioning. 

It  is  no  doubt  in  the  increase  of  such  forms  of  mutual 
recognition  and  of  practical  cooperation  within  this  lim- 
ited sphere  that  a closer  relation  between  Protestants 
and  Roman  Catholics  is  to  be  sought,  so  far  as  the  imme- 
diate future  is  concerned. 


CHAPTER  III 


THE  PRESENT  STATUS  OF  LOCAL  COOP- 
ERATION 

The  movement  toward  church  unity  is  developing  rap- 
idly in  two  fields — in  the  local  community  and  in  the 
Church  as  a whole.  And  each  development  is  indispen- 
sable to  the  other.  In  the  last  analysis,  however,  every- 
thing rests  upon  the  local  church.  It  is  here,  therefore, 
that  we  need  to  begin  our  discussion. 

Local  communities  differ  so  widely  in  character  that  it 
is  almost  impossible  to  speak  in  general  terms.  Two  types, 
more  or  less  distinct,  do,  however,  clearly  appear — the 
small  locality,  in  which  a single  “community  church’’  is 
sufficient,  and  the  city,  in  which  a federation  of  churches 
now  appears  to  afford  the  most  practicable  step  toward 
unity.  We  shall  consider  the  two  types  of  communities 
separately. 

I.  The  Movement  toward  Church  Unity  in  Small 
Communities 

The  tendency  toward  the  unifying  of  the  Christian 
forces  in  small  communities  is  one  of  the  most  charac- 
teristic phases  of  the  general  movement  toward  the  union 
of  the  churches.  This  tendency  has  been  quickened  by 
the  increasing  shifting  of  emphasis,  particularly  during 
the  last  quarter  of  a century,  from  narrow  sectarianism 
to  a broader  and  more  inclusive  theological  content.  Es- 
pecially in  towns  and  villages  where  the  population  is 
sufficient  to  support  adequately  only  a single  church  has 
the  problem  of  union  been  urgent. 

This  movement  toward  the  unifying  of  Christian  forces 
in  small  communities  has  found  expression  in  several 
forms,  each  of  which  we  need  to  examine  in  some  detail. 

96 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


97 


1.  Early  Efforts  to  Stop  Waste  of  Resources 

First  in  historical  order  has  been  a recognition  of  the 
waste  of  resources  due  to  the  competition  of  small 
churches  and  the  maintenance  of  sectarian  groups.  The 
tragic  failure  of  denominational  competition  in  rural  com- 
munities has  been  most  clearly  demonstrated  in  the  state 
of  Ohio,  through  studies  carried  on  by  Rev.  C.  O.  Gill, 
and  published  under  the  joint  authorship  of  Mr.  Gill  and 
Hon.  Gifford  Pinchot,  under  the  title  “Six  Thousand 
Country  Churches.”1  All  over  the  nation  this  waste  and 
failure  have  been  noted.  It  was  in  the  state  of  Maine, 
as  early  as  1890,  that  the  first  organization  was  formed 
to  seek  a distinctly  cooperative  plan,  by  reciprocal  ex- 
change of  exclusive  responsibility  for  certain  communi- 
ties, as  a substitute  for  wasteful  and  destructive  compe- 
tition. After  thirty  years  of  testing,  the  principles  then 
laid  down  are  acknowledged  to  be  still  sound  and  valid  as 
far  as  they  go.  In  fact,  they  are  even  clearer  today,  for 
men  who  have  been  ministered  to  in  war  by  Protestant 
chaplains  of  many  churches,  to  say  nothing  of  Catholics 
and  Jews,  are  not  prepared  to  support  needless  churches 
duplicating  one  another’s  efforts. 

2.  The  Union  Church 

As  a remedy  for  the  ills  of  sectarianism,  communities 
have  tried  the  “union  church.”  When  a church  bears  no 
denominational  name,  has  no  connection  with  denomina- 
tional organizations  and  enterprises,  and  in  creedal  posi- 
tion avoids  distinctions  and  tests,  or  is  neutral  toward 
them,  or  endeavors  to  be  inclusive  of  all,  it  is  in  effect  a 
union  church,  whatever  may  be  the  name  it  carries.* 

'Macmillan  Co.,  New  York,  1919.  The  volume  can  be  secured 
from  the  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America, 
105  East  22d  St.,  New  York. 

'Many  are  now  using  the  name  “community  church,”  meaning 
oftentimes  in  reality  the  same  as  “union  church,”  despite  the  dif- 
ferent designation. 


98 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Against  the  union  church  have  arisen  out  of  experience 
certain  serious  criticisms  which  have  to  be  taken  into 
account : 

a.  Without  the  usual  associational  fellowships  and 
friendships,  which  Christian  organizations  require,  it 
often  lacks  occasion  for  the  expression  of  allegiance, 
loyalty,  and  devotion  to  the  larger  bodies  and  movements 
that  include  a vision  of  the  whole  country  or  the  world. 
It  tends  to  become  impoverished  in  its  religious  ideals, 
because  it  has  no  agencies  carrying  on  the  great  enter- 
prises of  home  and  foreign  missions  in  its  behalf. 

b.  It  lacks  adequate  outside  advice  and  supervision, 
with  expert  and  technical  help  and  guidance  at  critical 
periods,  from  bishop,  superintendent,  secretary,  or  other 
denominational  leader.  It  is  also  subject  more  than  other 
churches  are  to  deception  and  abuse  from  unprincipled 
and  unworthy  pastors  and  preachers,  because  often 
obliged  to  secure  ministers  from  the  foot-loose  variety. 

c.  The  union  church  promotes  no  institutions  for  edu- 
cation, religious  or  secular,  in  any  large  and  statesmanlike 
way.  It  does  not  have,  therefore,  within  itself  certain  of 
the  incentives  toward  learning  which  other  churches 
have.  Neither  for  itself,  nor  for  its  Sunday  school,  does 
it  have  a literature  which  is  produced  by  its  own  asso- 
ciates ; and  it  helps  to  produce  none. 

d.  Frequently  the  union  church  lacks  a well-rounded 
system  of  truth,  due  to  the  fact  that  in  its  desire  to  in- 
clude all  and  offend  none  it  does  not  care  to  express,  and 
so  fails  to  cultivate,  deep  religious  convictions. 

Despite  the  shortcomings  considered  above,  the  union 
church  has  grown  into  the  affection  and  confidence  of 
many  people  and  is  satisfactorily  serving  some  communi- 
ties. In  the  state  of  Massachusetts  are  reported  more 
union  churches,  frankly  so-called,  than  in  any  other  state. 
These,  about  two  score  in  number,  hold  an  annual  con- 
ference, and,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Massachusetts 
Federation  of  Churches,  seek  to  secure  the  advantages  of 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


99 


joint  fellowship.  Their  success,  however,  has  not  been 
such  as  to  remove  entirely  the  charges  of  weakness 
against  the  union  church  as  at  present  organized.  So 
long  as  the  churches  at  large  function  denominationally, 
a church  which  is  isolated  from  this  fellowship  is  under 
a handicap.  Yet  it  is  only  fair  to  say  that  under  certain 
conditions  a union  church  seems  most  fully  to  meet  the 
needs  of  the  community. 

3.  The  Federated  Church 

A third  step  which  has  been  taken  is  in  the  form  of  an 
experiment  with  what  is  called  “the  federated  church.” 

To  be  clear  on  this  point  we  must  distinguish  between 
three  uses  of  the  term  “federated  church.”  First,  there 
is  the  proper  use,  when  two  or  more  churches,  each  pre- 
serving its  own  organization  and  connection  with  its  own 
denomination,  unite  in  some  or  all  of  their  functions  un- 
der the  pastoral  care  of  one  man  or  one  staff  of  men. 

Second,  there  is  the  looser,  less  exact  use  of  the  term, 
to  describe  an  organization  of  individuals  who,  while 
retaining  membership  in  earlier  churches  of  their 
choice,  unite  in  a new  church,  usually  as  a temporary 
expedient,  perhaps  while  in  a foreign  city,  as  in  the  cap- 
itals of  Europe  where  many  reside  for  a time,  in  student 
communities,  in  camps,  or  in  cities  like  Cristobal  and 
Balboa  of  the  Canal  Zone.  Such  churches  as  these  un- 
questionably meet  a genuine  need  under  conditions  of 
temporary  residence.  In  their  localities  they  are  equiv- 
alent to  “union  churches”  and  frequently  so-called,  yet 
differ  from  them  in  the  important  respect  of  being  inter- 
related, rather  than  unrelated,  to  denominations.  In- 
stead of  being  called  “federated  churches,”  they  should, 
strictly  speaking,  be  called  “churches  of  federated 
Christians.” 

In  the  third  place,  the  term  “federated  church”  has 
been  applied  very  loosely  to  almost  any  kind  of  a church- 
combination  in  which  different  elements  have  been  con- 


100 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


solidated,  even  though  the  result  is  in  fact  an  ordinary 
denominational  church.  A kind  of  trade  value  is  thought 
by  some  people  to  inhere  in  the  name.  In  what  follows 
we  are  considering  only  the  federated  church  in  the 
stricter  sense  of  a body  within  which  two  or  more 
churches  unite  under  one  pastor  but  preserve  their  own 
organizations. 

There  has  been  a very  strong  impulse  toward  the  for- 
mation of  local  federated  churches.  The  overhead  move- 
ments of  the  last  twenty-five  years  among  the  denomina- 
tions have  been  in  this  direction ; and  the  development  of 
that  community  consciousness  which  during  the  war 
brought  all  people,  even  of  the  most  diverse  types,  to- 
gether in  cooperative  movements  has  helped  to  empha- 
size the  tendency.  There  are  doubtless  several  hundred 
federated  churches  in  the  United  States,  in  varying  stages 
of  activity  and  inactivity.  In  the  office  of  the  Home  Mis- 
sions Council  is  a list  of  about  three  hundred.  And  the 
federated  church  has  no  doubt  been  a most  useful  expedi- 
ent, at  least  'temporarily,  for  promoting  the  spirit  of 
unity  and  expressing  practicable  union  in  workable  form. 

Yet  the  federated  church  has  been  on  trial  long  enough, 
and  fairly  enough,  to  satisfy  many  of  its  friends  that  it  is 
not  the  final  step  toward  unity  in  the  local  community. 
The  considerations  urged  against  the  federated  church 
would  probably  be  somewhat  as  follows : 

a.  At  best  it  is  a kind  of  makeshift  and  not  a final 
settlement.  It  is  in  a state  of  unstable  equilibrium,  be- 
cause of  various  fluctuating  conditions  and  influences. 
The  question  of  the  pastorate  involves  recurring  adjust- 
ments of  denominational  connection  and  influence.  More- 
over, new  members  must  decide  which  denominational 
church  they  will  join,  and  then  the  balance  of  strength 
is  disturbed;  or  if  they  elect  to  join  the  “federation” 
itself,  an  anomalous  and  unplanned  for  “union  church” 
is  projected  into  the  midst  of  the  several  denominational 
churches,  with  a resulting  confusion  and  uneasiness. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


IOI 


And  if  the  federated  church  gets  happily  by  the  perplex- 
ities of  changing  pastors  and  receiving  new  members,  it 
may  come  at  any  moment  upon  the  pitfalls  of  readjusting 
denominational  benevolences  and  financial  responsibili- 
ties, because  of  varying  needs,  new  campaigns,  or  be- 
quests, or  because  meeting  houses  burn,  or  must  be  re- 
paired, or  other  material  and  temporal  exigencies  emerge. 
Or  some  outside  influence,  unreckoned  with  and  unan- 
ticipated, may  intrude  at  any  moment,  by  the  decision  of 
an  ecclesiastical  official  of  one  of  the  denominations. 

b.  A verdict  against  the  federated  church  often  rests 
upon  the  suspicion  that  behind  it  is  the  intention  of  one 
of  the  parties  to  take  advantage  of  the  others,  and  by 
strategy  bring  them  all  into  a single  denominational  camp, 
with  obvious  gain  to  that  one  denomination.  When  a 
suspicion  of  ulterior  motives  lingers  in  any  mind,  enthu- 
siasm for  the  enterprise  and  fidelity  to  it  vanish. 

c.  There  is  also  the  difficulty — some  would  call  it  an 
impossibility — of  keeping  up  a divided  allegiance  with 
impartiality.  The  federated  church  requires  of  many 
people  a continued  poise  of  judgment  and  protracted 
practice  of  equity  and  fair  play,  for  which  not  all  people 
are  adequately  equipped.  The  one  pastor  who  serves  two 
or  more  organizations,  blended  as  one  congregation,  must 
deal  impartially  with  all.  If  bias  or  prejudice  or  predilec- 
tion tincture  his  ministry,  the  sense  of  injustice  may  de- 
velop into  resentment  and  revolt.  Committees  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  their  different  duties,  and  influential 
people  as  they  serve  and  lead,  must  likewise  evince  the 
spirit  of  thorough  equity,  else  the  federation  may  ulti- 
mately fail.  So  long  as  denominational  loyalties  remain, 
the  utility  of  the  federated  church  will  fluctuate  with  the 
varying  degrees  of  judicial-mindedness  and  good  will  to 
be  found  in  different  communities.  The  federated  church 
is  not  in  itself  a cure-all  for  the  ills  of  denominational 
rivalry.  In  many  communities,  however,  it  is  agreed  that 
it  is  at  present  serving  a useful  purpose. 


102 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


4.  The  Denominational  Church  Fxmctioniny  for  the 
Whole  Community 

The  phrase,  “the  community  church,”  has  lately  come 
into  prominence.  Great  community  enterprises,  unpar- 
alleled in  the  history  of  our  country,  occasioned  by  the 
war,  have  prepared  men  for  working  together.  If  they 
can  meet  together,  plan  together,  conduct  great  drives 
for  patriotic  service,  can  they  not  also  worship  together? 
If  the  people  can  function  in  a community  Red  Cross, 
and  a community  enlistment  bureau,  why  not  in  a com- 
munity church? 

We  must  look  first  to  definitions. 

The  term  “community  church”  is  not  yet  definitely  and 
distinctly  used.  Sometimes  it  is  applied  to  a federated 
church ; sometimes  it  means  nothing  more  than  a denom- 
inational church  which  has  institutional  features ; at  other 
times  it  is  naught  else  than  the  familiar  “union  church,” 
given  a new  name ; again,  church  promoters  sometimes 
use  the  phrase  as  a trade  mark  to  catch  the  good  will  of 
people  who  are  looking  for  a church  of  a broad  and  lib- 
eral type,  imbued  with  social  impulses. 

We  should  limit  the  term  to  the  functioning  of  a 
church,  not  to  its  form  of  organization,  or  to  its  denom- 
inational connections  or  lack  of  them.  That  church 
which  seeks  to  minister  to  all  the  religious  interests  of  a 
community,  gathering  to  its  fellowship  and  its  service 
all  the  Christians  of  the  community,  of  whatever  name 
or  characteristics,  is  a community  church.  How  it  is 
organized,  or  even  how  it  is  named,  is  less  important  than 
the  question  as  to  how  it  ministers.  A federated  church 
may  be  a community  church,  or  it  may  fail  to  be  a com- 
munity church,  even  though  it  be  the  only  church  in  the 
community,  according  as  it  does  or  does  not  serve  all 
the  religious  interests  of  the  community  and  include  in 
its  fellowship  all  Christians  of  the  community.  On  the 
other  hand,  a denominational  church  may  be  a community 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


103 


church,  if  it  embraces  in  the  scope  of  its  ministries  all 
the  religious  interests  of  the  community  and  includes  in 
its  fellowship  all  the  Christians  there.  It  need  not  nec- 
essarily receive  all  Christians  into  full  and  equal  mem- 
bership, but  it  must  receive  all  into  its  fellowship,  in 
such  ways  as  to  be  satisfying  to  the  social  instincts  of 
all  and  to  call  out  the  feeling  of  their  corporate 
responsibility. 

Here  may  be  the  difficulty,  yet  nevertheless  here  is  the 
goal — to  serve  all,  of  varying  talents  and  varying  points 
of  view,  even  as  Jesus  Christ  would  serve  them,  with  a 
toleration  and  a patience  that  are  all-inclusive. 

Many  considerations  may  be  urged  in  favor  of  the 
community  church : 

a.  It  seems  to  have  been  the  New  Testament  type  of 
church.  The  churches  at  Corinth,  Thessalonica,  Colosse, 
Laodicea,  and  Rome  appear  to  have  been  inclusive  of  all 
the  Christians  in  the  city,  although  some  of  them  met 
in  one  house  and  others  in  another,  and  some  of  them 
were  even  broken  into  factions,  according  as  they  fol- 
lowed more  closely  Paul,  or  Apollos,  or  Peter.  Yet 
their  Christian  designation  was  one  and  their  fellowship 
was  one. 

b.  Practical  experience  of  the  years  shows  plainly  that 
in  the  small  locality  the  community  church  alone  can  ade- 
quately fulfill  its  mission.  Others  are  wasteful  of  re- 
sources and  foster  division,  thus  sacrificing  certain  essen- 
tial characteristics.  Communities  have  learned  that  it  is 
not  only  easier  but  also  more  Christlike  to  maintain 
in  a small  population  one  church  which  tolerates  within 
itself  every  variety  of  Christian  experience  and  attain- 
ment, than  it  is  to  maintain  and  tolerate  different 
churches,  each  of  which  exists  for  a different  type. 
Spiritual  agreements  can  more  readily  be  secured  among 
groups  of  Christians  meeting  together  than  among  separ- 
ated groups. 

c.  It  has  been  becoming  plain  to  the  average  man 


104  CHRISTIAN  UNITY 

through  a long  term  of  years,  and  the  effects  of  the  war 
have  hastened  the  process,  that  the  validity  of  the  Church 
does  not  consist  alone  in  detailed  doctrinal  agreement. 
The  war  has  had  an  immense  effect  upon  men  in  making 
a few  simple  and  far-reaching  convictions  controlling; 
and  these  few  fundamentals  seem  to  them  common  to 
practically  all  the  churches.  Consequently  the  question 
of  which  church,  amongst  several,  does  not  seem  so  im- 
portant as  it  did  to  men  of  former  days.  The  justification 
for  the  churches  is  regarded  more  as  resting  upon  their 
social  functions  than  upon  any  doctrinal  differences. 
The  common  social  functions  of  the  Church  which  appeal 
to  men  generally  as  justifying  its  existence,  are  that  it  is 
a place  of  testimony  to  the  reality  of  God  in  Christ,  speak- 
ing to  men  of  the  deepest,  the  greatest,  and  the  best  things 
of  life;  that  it  is  a social  center  for  acquaintance  and  fel- 
lowship on  the  deeper  levels  of  human  experience ; that, 
however  small  it  may  be,  nevertheless  it  is  a great  educa- 
tional institution,  in  which  the  proclamation  of  truth,  the 
interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  life,  and  the  inculcation 
of  personal  duties  are  constant  tasks ; that,  however 
meagerly  it  may  be  equipped,  it  is  yet  a place  of  worship, 
where  the  most  profound  emotions  are  stirred  in  the  sense 
of  awe  and  in  expression  of  adoration  and  praise ; that 
it  is  a means  of  ministry  and  service  to  the  community — 
the  combination  of  Christians  in  united  good  will  and 
good  deeds,  in  order  to  Christianize  all  the  community 
life. 

A perplexing  problem,  however,  arises : How  can  the 
community  church  serve  its  community  adequately,  and 
at  the  same  time  not  itself  become  limited  to  its  commu- 
nity? Can  it  be  locally  efficient  without  at  the  same  time 
becoming  provincial  ? The  mind  of  Christ  cannot  be  in 
men,  unless  they  think  and  love  with  something  of 
His  universal  inclusiveness.  Can  a church  be  both  local 
and  catholic? 

The  answer  to  this  question  must  be  sought  in  two 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION  105 

directions — in  the  spirit  of  the  local  church  and  in  its 
relation  to  outside  organizations. 

a.  As  regards  its  own  spirit,  the  church  that  is  to  min- 
ister to  the  whole  community  must  evince  breadth  of  fel- 
lowship by  allowing  the  right  of  private  judgment,  not 
insisting  upon  absolute  conformity  to  a single  standard. 
It  will  freely  entertain  varieties  within  its  fellowship, 
not  seeking  to  reduce  differences  to  the  level  of  flat  uni- 
formity but  including  variations  within  the  richer  unity 
of  a higher  synthesis.  The  plan  of  the  so-called  “Con- 
cordat” between  Congregationalists  and  Episcopalians, 
in  accordance  with  which  a Congregational  minister  may 
receive  a second  ordination  at  the  hands  of  an  Episcopal 
bishop,  in  order  to  render  his  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments acceptable  to  Episcopalians,  is  a striving  toward 
such  a higher  synthesis.  If  the  principles  of  the  church 
seem  to  preclude  full  membership  for  all  the  variant  kinds 
of  Christian  conviction  and  experience  within  the  com- 
munity, then  it  will  make  some  adequate  provision  for 
satisfactory  affiliation,  which  will  permit  it  to  be  what  a 
church  should  be  to  every  Christian  of  the  community  in 
the  social  functions  enumerated  above.  In  the  plan  of 
cooperation  which  was  put  into  effect  in  the  state  of  Mon- 
tana in  1919,  it  was  fully  recognized  that  those  Christians 
who  ordinarily  gave  social  allegiance  to  a church  serving 
alone  a community  for  the  sake  of  administrative  effi- 
ciency, should  have  the  care  and  compensation  of  occa- 
sional ministries  by  clergymen  of  their  own  choice.  This 
is  the  meaning  of  the  principle  enunciated  in  the  follow- 
ing terms:  “Occasional  ministry  by  any  cooperating  de- 
nomination to  small  groups  of  adherents  of  that  com- 
munion is  not  to  be  regarded  as  infringement  on  the  one 
hand  nor  as  occupancy  of  fields  on  the  other.” 

b.  As  far  as  its  relations  to  outside  organizations  are 
concerned,  four  attitudes  may  conceivably  be  taken  by 
the  local  church. 

(1)  It  may  take  the  attitude  of  self-sufficient  isolation, 


io6  CHRISTIAN  UNITY 

disclaiming  all  responsibility  for  any  person  or  any  thing 
outside  its  own  community.  But  in  this  case,  while  it  may 
continue  to  perform  the  local  functions  of  a church,  it 
will  lose  the  missionary  and  generative  spirit  of  Chris- 
tianity and  will  soon  cease  to  be  Christian  in  the  fullest 
sense  of  the  word.  A church  which  lacks  a world  vision 
and  missionary  zeal,  thinks  only  of  itself,  and  ministers 
only  to  the  interests  of  its  own  immediate  environment, 
cannot  remain  Christian  any  more  than  a man  can  be 
truly  a Christian  if  he  limits  all  his  interests  to  himself 
and  his  family. 

(2)  It  may  respond  to  appeals  of  a spontaneous  and 
sporadic  character — may  pray  for  and  give  to  such  occa- 
sional needs  as  those  brought  to  public  attention  by  rea- 
son of  floods,  earthquakes,  fires,  pestilence,  famine,  and 
other  great  calamities ; or  may  support  societies  which  do 
good  solely  on  the  humanitarian  plane  or  push  some  par- 
tial propaganda.  In  much  of  the  generosity  thus  elicited 
there  is  no  little  real  Christian  benevolence ; but  it  is  not 
of  the  steadiest  and  strongest  kind,  nor  does  it  possess 
the  vision  and  balance  of  those  great  missionary  societies 
which  have  grown  up  under  denominational  oversight 
through  the  refining  experiences  of  the  failures  and  suc- 
cesses of  many  generations. 

(3)  It  may  endeavor,  like  a federated  church,  to  yield 
allegiance  to  several  missionary  societies,  and  groups  of 
societies — a society  or  a group  for  each  of  the  denomi- 
nations represented  in  the  federation.  Its  success  may 
be  well  proportioned  and  satisfactory,  but  the  difficulties 
and  dangers  as  the  years  pass  are  not  few.  Special  ap- 
peals and  “drives”  by  one  denomination  or  another  may 
disturb  the  balance  and  produce  disquietude.  Changes 
of  pastors  and  of  committees  may  alter  the  emphasis  and 
destroy  an  equitable  adjustment,  or  if  the  fixing  of  the 
ratios  comes  up  periodically  recurring  disputes  may 
impend. 

(4)  The  most  secure  and  satisfactory  way,  so  long  as 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


107 


our  missionary  work  is  organized  denominationally,  is 
for  a community  church  to  be  connected  with  a single 
denomination. 

But  is  this  possible?  Can  a community  church  be  a 
part  of  a denomination  and  as  such  (a)  serve  well  its  own 
community,  meeting  the  needs  of  all  of  the  Christians 
there,  and  (b)  at  the  same  time  through  the  channels  of 
a single  denomination  extend  its  interests,  its  devotion, 
its  prayers,  and  its  benevolences  unto  all  the  religious 
needs  of  the  world  ? 

The  answer  is,  yes — assuredly  yes,  if  the  denomina- 
tional authorities  are  favorably  disposed  to  cooperation. 
There  are  scores,  hundreds,  probably  thousands  of 
churches  meeting  all  of  these  conditions  more  or  less  com- 
pletely, both  within  the  community  and  in  relation  to  the 
world’s  needs ; and  the  prevailing  type  is  the  denomina- 
tional church  which  has  become  community-minded. 
Men  care  less  than  formerly  for  the  denominational  name 
of  the  church  in  which  they  worship,  and  more  for  the 
character  of  its  community  service  and  the  outreach  and 
vision  of  the  denominational  organizations.3 

5.  The  Present  Responsibility  for  Developing  Commu- 
nity Churches 

The  present  tendency  toward  unity  in  local  communi- 
ties, therefore,  seems  toward  that  kind  of  unity  which 
embraces  Christians  of  diverse  types  within  the  fellow- 
ship of  a single  church,  directly  related  to  one  of  the 
denominations,  but  broad  enough  in  sympathy  and  in 
ministry  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  entire  community. 
This  situation  lays  a special  responsibility  upon  three 

3As  typical  of  community  churches  with  denominational  con- 
nection might  be  mentioned  the  strong  “Washington  Park  Com- 
munity Church,”  in  a new  residential  section  of  Denver.  Its 
membership  of  five  hundred  represents  eleven  denominations. 
While  serving  the  whole  community  without  denominational 
designation  or  distinction,  it  has  contacts  with  the  Church  as  a 
whole  through  connection  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Con- 
ference. 


io8 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


groups:  (a)  members  of  local  churches,  (b)  administra- 
tive officers  next  above  those  in  the  local  church,  and  (c) 
denominational  leaders. 

a.  The  time  has  come  for  all  churches,  particularly 
those  which  stand  alone  in  their  communities,  to  enlarge 
the  terms  of  fellowship,  if  not  the  terms  of  membership, 
by  dropping  any  exclusive  and  sectarian  tests  which 
would  shut  worthy  Christians  out  of  their  companion- 
ship in  work  and  worship.  A church  which  will  not  in- 
clude in  its  fellowship  all  worthy  Christians  is  challenged 
when  it  claims  the  right  to  occupy  exclusively  a single 
field.  It  should  include  all,  else  it  should  give  way  to  a 
church  which  will.  There  is  a growing  sentiment  against 
more  than  one  church  in  a community  of  the  one-church 
size,  and  there  is  a tendency  to  agree  that  a population  of 
one  thousand  should  have  but  one  church.  And  when  one 
Christian  church  stands  alone  in  a locality  the  necessity 
upon  it  of  serving  every  Christian  interest  of  the  place 
seems  apparent.  No  one  should  require  the  violation  of 
conscience  by  any  church  which  has  distinctive  require- 
ments for  admission  to  church  membership,  but  such 
churches  can  at  least  make  their  fellowship  broad  enough 
and  inclusive  enough  to  receive  all  who  should  be  re- 
ceived. Many  such  churches  are  doing  this  already. 

b.  A very  large  number  of  churches  have  the  im- 
pulse and  the  purpose  to  serve  their  communities  ade- 
quately but  are  hindered,  if  not  entirely  prevented,  by 
the  administrative  officers  above  them,  the  men  who 
care  for  the  interests  of  the  ecclesiastical  organization 
next  above  the  local  church — the  district,  the  conference, 
the  association,  the  convention,  the  synod,  the  presbytery, 
the  classis,  or  the  diocese.  These  men  have  other  mat- 
ters in  mind ; they  are  thinking  of  associational  and 
denominational  strength,  of  statistical  returns,  and  the 
recompense  of  faithful  administration.  Consequently 
they  are  often  less  ready  to  recognize  community  condi- 
tions and  needs  than  are  pastors  and  resident  church 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION  109 

members.  They,  more  than  any  other  class  of  responsible 
administrators  of  church  affairs,  prevent  the  needed  ex- 
tension of  Christian  comity,  for  they  insist  upon  the 
rigors  of  denominational  ties  for  the  sake  of  holding 
to  denominational  possessions,  not  recognizing  that  the 
compensations  of  enlarged  fellowship  will  be  greater 
than  its  losses. 

To  meet  this  situation  the  so-called  plan  of  “recipro- 
cal exchange’’  has  been  employed,  which  helps  to  make 
the  fact  of  immediate  compensation  apparent.  By  this 
plan  when  one  denomination  gives  up  its  members  and 
work  in  one  community  to  another  denomination,  another 
community  is  sought  in  which  conditions  are  reversed,  so 
that  the  denomination  which  before  yielded  may  now 
gain  and  the  denomination  which  in  the  former  case 
gained  may  now  make  the  concession.  This  plan,  first 
proposed  and  put  into  operation  in  Maine,  has  been 
approved  by  many  bodies,  including  the  Home  Missions 
Council  and  the  Commission  on  Councils  of  Churches  of 
the  Federal  Council,  and  has  been  put  into  operation  in 
several  states.  It  is  the  very  nerve  center  of  the  plans 
which  have  been  carried  out  so  successfully  in  Vermont. 
The  resulting  sense  of  fair  play  and  equity  takes  away 
a large  share  of  the  stings  of  concession  and  surrender. 

c.  Out  of  the  experiences  of  the  Church  in  moving 
toward  unity  in  local  communities  comes  a message  for 
the  leaders  of  the  denominations  at  large.  For  no  little 
movement  toward  unity,  even  in  a remote  or  apparently 
insignificant  place,  fails  to  affect  the  strength  and  vitality 
of  the  very  head  center  of  the  denomination  itself.  And 
from  all  these  local  movements,  of  which  there  is  an 
increasing  host,  comes  a warning  that  the  denominations 
themselves  as  a whole  must  give  heed  to  greater  coopera- 
tion among  themselves. 

The  little  church,  and  the  sum  total  of  little  churches, 
are  essential  to  denominational  efficiency,  and  whatever 
the  little  church  does  should  be  in  accord  with  the  larger 


no 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


plans  of  the  denomination.  But  when  the  small  church 
finds  it  needful,  for  the  sake  of  fulfilling  its  true  Chris- 
tian mission  in  its  own  community,  to  carry  out  policies 
which  are  not  exclusively  sectarian  or  denominational, 
then  the  denomination  itself,  to  preserve  its  own  integrity 
and  efficiency,  must  consider  plans  tending  toward  greater 
unity. 

These  movements  of  the  little  churches  toward  unity 
require  the  leaders  in  the  churches  at  large  to  think  and 
plan  in  their  behalf.  Community  churches  must  not  be 
stopped.  Indeed,  they  cannot  be  stopped ; but  they  should 
now  be  anticipated  and  planned  for,  with  wisdom  which 
discerns  all  needs  and  takes  all  factors  into  account.  De- 
nominations now  existing  must  therefore  plan  to 
“mother”  these  community  churches  in  a broad  and  chari- 
table spirit,  else  they  may  be  sure  that  a new  organization 
will  arise  which  will  give  them  a fostering  care  and  which 
would  probably  be  equivalent  to  the  creation  of  a new 
denomination  of  interdenominationalism. 

The  lesser  parts  are  coming  together.  The  time  has 
come  for  the  heads  to  come  together. 

II.  The  Federation  of  Churches  in  Cities  and 
States 

The  increasing  cooperation  of  churches  in  efforts  to 
Christianize  the  community  in  which  they  are  located  is 
one  of  the  most  conspicuous  expressions  of  the  spirit  of 
unity.  Such  cooperation  means  the  harmonizing  of  pur- 
poses, the  coordinating  of  plans,  the  synchronizing  of 
efforts,  in  order  to  render  a common  service  more  effec- 
tively. It  is  the  unity  in  deeds  that  is  immediately  pos- 
sible and  universally  needed. 

The  name  commonly  given  to  the  organization  by  which 
this  cooperation  has  been  made  possible  is  the  federation 
of  churches.  A more  correct  name  is  the  council  of 
churches.  For  a time  there  were  nearly  as  many  differ- 
ent names  as  there  were  organizations.  This  was  strik- 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


m 


ingly  illustrated  at  the  recent  convention  on  the  Church 
and  the  Community.1  Delegates  from  the  Christian  Coun- 
cil of  Churches  in  Atlanta,  from  the  Churchmen’s  Fed- 
eration in  Louisville,  from  the  Interchurch  Federation  in 
Sacramento,  from  the  Norfolk  Federation  of  Churches, 
from  the  Pittsburgh  Council  of  Churches,  were  the  guests 
of  the  Federated  Churches  of  Cleveland.  At  this  gath- 
ering the  name  “council  of  churches”  met  with  greatest 
favor.  But  as  the  genius  of  the  federation  movement  is 
local' autonomy,  no  group  rules  for  others  on  this  or  any 
other  matter.  The  churches  of  the  community — city, 
county,  or  state — which  create  the  organization  are  the 
sole  authority  in  determining  form,  personnel,  program, 
and  name. 

i.  The  Development  of  Local  Cooperation 

The  World  War  at  first  retarded  and  later  accel- 
erated the  organization  of  councils  of  churches  in  the 
cities  and  the  states.  During  the  war  all  recognized 
the  need  of  the  cooperation  of  the  churches,  a need  which 
was  made  painfully  evident  by  the  cooperation  of  all 
other  community  groups.  Yet  we  were  so  intent  upon 
winning  the  war,  and  the  many  demands  for  money  were 
so  insistent,  that  we  did  not  give  the  time,  the  thought, 
the  energy,  and  the  money  necessary  for  effective  church 
fellowship.  Those  who  then  tried  to  mobilize  the 
churches  as  churches  to  meet  their  opportunities  unitedly 
found  it  almost  impossible  to  do  so.  In  a period  when 
it  would  seem  that  the  growth  should  have  been  most 
rapid  it  was  slow.  Only  a few  councils  or  federations 
were  formed,  financed,  and  manned,  several  of  these 
being  in  cities  near  training  camps  and  industrial  plants 
engaged  in  war  work. 

At  the  close  of  the  war  there  was  a most  noticeable 
change  in  the  progress  of  the  federation  movement.  In 

‘Held  in  Cleveland,  O.,  June,  1920,  under  the  auspices  of  the 
Federal  Council’s  Commission  on  Interchurch  Federations. 


1 12 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


the  year  1919  the  growth  was  more  rapid  and  more 
substantial  than  in  all  the  preceding  four  years  or  in  any 
four  years  prior  to  the  war.  City  after  city  swung  into 
line.  The  Commission  on  Interchurch  Federations  as- 
sisted in  raising  nearly  $250,000  for  budgets,  the  policy 
having  been  adopted  for  large  cities  of  not  organizing  a 
council  of  churches  until  sufficient  funds  were  assured 
to  meet  expenses  for  two  years.  As  a result  of  this 
steady  development  more  than  forty  cities  now  employ 
executive  secretaries,  and  a dozen  more  will  probably  do 
so  within  a few  months. 

It  is  no  longer  a question  of  whether  the  churches  will 
form  a council — it  is  only  a question  of  when.  Every 
community  that  does  not  have  it  is  in  need  of  it ; nearly 
every  community  is  ready  for  it.  All  that  is  lacking  is  a 
nucleus  about  which  opinion  and  desire  and  action  may 
crystallize,  and  crystallization  in  permanent  organization 
follows  inevitably  where  there  is  strong  local  initiative. 
The  community  consciousness  that  grew  strong  in  the 
days  of  the  war  is  reacting  on  the  minds  and  hearts  of 
all  true  churchmen.  The  result  is  a decided  increase  in 
the  number  of  councils  which  are  functioning  in  many 
lines  of  effective  service.  To  appreciate  the  importance 
of  this,  one  should  be  familiar  with  the  history  of  the 
movement,  the  fundamental  principles  that  underlie  it, 
and  the  programs  that  are  being  carried  out. 

The  steady  growth  in  the  cooperation  of  local  churches 
has  been  in  accordance  with  a simple  principle : any  com- 
munity having  two  or  more  churches  can  not  adequately 
provide  for  its  religious  needs,  unless  there  is  some  com- 
mittee, council,  federation,  or  other  organization  through 
which  the  churches  can  function  together. 

The  development  of  plans  in  accordance  with  this 
principle  has  been  gradual.  It  has  not  been  due  to  any 
particular  person  or  organization.  In  the  beginning  it 
was  spontaneous.  A few  individuals,  members  of  various 
churches,  undertook  to  meet  some  community  need  which 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


1 13 


challenged  those  who  professed  a desire  to  see  the  King- 
dom of  God  established  on  the  earth.  Out  of  these  united 
efforts  came  such  institutions  as  the  International  Sunday 
School  Association,  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Asso- 
ciation, the  Young  Women’s  Christian  Association,  the 
Woman’s  Christian  Temperance  Union,  the  Anti-Saloon 
League,  and  many  other  kindred  organizations.'  Their 
inception  and  growth  were  due  to  the  desire  of  Christians 
to  do  certain  things  which  were  not  being  done,  and  which 
could  not  be  done  by  individuals  or  by  groups  of  individ- 
uals acting  separately.  The  organization  of  ministerial 
unions  and  associations  was  due  to  this  same  desire.  In 
addition  to  discussing  subjects  of  mutual  interest  to 
clergymen  they  often  grappled  with  community  condi- 
tions demanding  the  attention  of  the  churches.  Aside 
from  having  union  meetings  and  union  evangelistic  cam- 
paigns, the  bond  of  interest  was  most  often  the  fight 
against  the  saloon  and  its  attendant  evils. 

The  next  natural  step  was  for  the  churches  as  churches 
to  undertake  to  attend  to  these  matters.  Committees 
were  formed  whose  members  were  appointed  by  the 
churches.  The  life  of  such  committees  was  generally 
brief.  The  churches  gained  an  unenviable  reputation  for 
having  spasms  of  evangelistic  and  reforming  fervor.  The 
important  fact  is  that  in  putting  forth  these  efforts  the 
churches  learned  the  value  of  cooperation  and  learned 
how  to  cooperate.  Church  members  were  coming  to  real- 
ize that  they  must  have  a part  in  making  plans  and  car- 
rying them  out  as  church  members,  instead  of  being  com- 
pelled to  find  an  outlet  for  interest  and  energies  in  other 
enterprises  for  which  the  churches  as  churches  were  not 
responsible. 

With  the  organization  of  the  Federal  Council  of  the 
Churches  of  Christ  in  America  the  application  of  the 
principle  of  cooperation  of  churches  became  more  gen- 
eral. A commission  called  the  Commission  on  State  and 


5See  Chapter  VIII  of  this  report. 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


"4 

Local  Federations  was  appointed,  which,  by  means  of 
personal  visits,  correspondence,  and  literature,  created 
much  enthusiasm  for  federations.  Scores  of  them  were 
formed  in  states  and  cities  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific. 
But  the  majority  of  these  soon  disappeared.  They  de- 
pended on  good  will  and  volunteer  leadership.  The  good 
will  remained  but  the  leadership  disappeared.  The  offi- 
cers were  usually  clergymen  who,  in  the  course  of  the 
natural  events  in  a clergyman’s  life,  moved  to  other  cities. 
This  commission  was  eventually  merged  with  the  new 
Commission  on  Federated  Movements,  appointed  by  the 
Federal  Council  in  1915,  and  was  called  the  Commission 
on  Interchurch  Federations  (State  and  Local).  It  is 
now  called  the  Commission  on  Councils  of  Churches 
(State  and  Local).  The  officers  of  this  commission  made 
a careful  study  of  the  situation.  This  study  revealed  the 
fact  that  in  large  communities  the  success  of  the  work 
depended  very  much  upon  having  an  employed  leader- 
ship. In  cities  where  a secretary  had  been  in  charge  of  a 
central  office,  the  cooperation  of  the  churches  had  become 
permanent  and  increasingly  effective.  These  cities,  and, 
in  like  manner,  the  states  that  had  adopted  this  policy, 
were  the  laboratories  in  which  the  principles  and  methods 
which  give  greatest  promise  of  success  were  thoroughly 
worked  out.  Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  St.  Louis,  Indianap- 
olis, Atlanta,  Louisville,  Sacramento,  Pittsburgh,  and 
other  cities  had  passed  through  various  experiences. 
Other  cities  had  met  with  good  success  though  depending 
on  volunteer  service,  such  as  Hartford,  Los  Angeles,  and 
Milwaukee.  Too  much  credit  cannot  be  given  to  the 
men  who  in  all  these  cities  and  in  the  states  of  California 
and  Massachusetts  were  the  pioneers  in  this  movement. 

The  principles  which  they  found  to  be  fundamental  and 
the  plans  and  methods  which  they  proved  to  be  workable 
constitute  the  solid  foundation  on  which  this  practice  of 
Christian  unity  rests  today.  In  this  field  we  have  passed 
from  the  days  of  experiment  to  the  days  of  continuous 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION  115 

achievement.  To  state  some  of  the  guiding  principles  is 
to  define  and  to  describe  this  movement. 

2.  Principles  Underlying  Local  Cooperation 

In  1917  a Conference  on  the  Principles  and  Methods 
of  Interchurch  Work  was  held  in  Pittsburgh,  in  prepara- 
tion for  which  eight  commissions,  composed  of  the  men 
who  had  had  the  most  experience  in  cooperative  church 
work,  spent  the  greater  part  of  a year  studying  what 
had  been  done.  Their  reports,  covering  the  various  types 
of  work  undertaken  in  different  cities,  were  discussed 
by  nearly  five  hundred  delegates  representing  more  than 
one  hundred  communities  and  twenty  communions.9  The 
principles  enunciated  at  that  time  are  more  generally 
accepted  and  more  firmly  adhered  to  today  than  eVer 
before.  The  most  serious  delay  to  the  movement  at 
the  present  time  is  caused  by  the  misunderstanding  of 
them.  It  may  be  well,  therefore,  to  take  time  to  empha- 
size them  here. 

a.  The  first  principle,  which  is  basic,  is  a definition. 
“By  a council  or  federation  of  churches  is  meant  the 
churches  themselves  as  churches,  consulting  and  coop- 
erating officially,  through  accredited  delegates,  for  all 
accepted  common  tasks.”  No  association  of  individuals, 
or  of  organizations  of  individuals,  or  of  separate  depart- 
ments in  the  churches,  or  of  representative  church  mem- 
bers not  accredited,  constitutes  a council  or  federation  of 
churches.  The  churches  differ,  of  course,  in  the  methods 
by  which  delegates  are  accredited  to  such  a council,  ac- 
cording to  the  practices  or  rules  of  each  denomination. 

b.  The  churches,  independent  and  differing  in  policy, 
ritual,  and  creeds,  cannot  recognize  in  the  organization, 
or  in  the  combined  membership  of  a council,  any  superior 


"The  substance  of  these  reports  is  published  in  “A  Manual  of 
Interchurch  Work,”  which  can  be  secured  from  the  Commission 
on  Councils  of  Churches,  105  East  22d  Street,  New  York. 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


1 16 

ecclesiastical  authority.  Membership  involves  only  the 
maximum  cooperation  which  the  principles,  policy,  and 
polity  of  each  communion  permit.  The  only  force  pos- 
sible in  such  a council,  and  the  only  force  necessary  to 
secure  practical  results,  is  “that  force  which  comes  from 
frequent  discussion  and  consequent  united  opinion.”  The 
council  has  no  authority  to  assess  the  participating 
churches.  The  acceptance  of  financial  responsibilities 
rests  with  the  church  that  joins. 

c.  A council  of  churches  is  not  another  outside  organi- 
zation, but  a clearing  house  of  the  churches  where  they 
consult  together  and  then  work  in  cooperation  on  common 
tasks.  One  of  the  most  common  descriptions  of  a federa- 
tion is  that  it  is  to  the  religious  life  of  the  community  what 
the  chamber  of  commerce  is  to  the  business  life  of  a 
community. 

d.  Specific  tasks  may  furnish  the  occasion  for  the  or- 
ganization of  a council  of  churches,  but  they  do  not  con- 
stitute its  limits,  end,  or  significance.  That  significance 
lies  in  the  fact  that  a council  of  churches  reveals  and 
makes  effectual  the  unity  of  the  churches  as  the  great 
Church  of  Christ,  so  far  as  such  unity  is  possible  under 
our  present  denominational  organization. 

e.  A council  or  federation  of  churches  is  an  autono- 
mous body.  It  has  no  external  official  relationships  with 
other  councils,  local,  state,  or  national.  The  churches 
in  the  community  determine  the  character  of  the  organi- 
zation and  the  program  of  work,  provide  for  all  funds, 
and  direct  the  expenditure  of  the  same.  All  fellowship 
with  other  councils  is  voluntary.  It  is  strictly  a home  rule 
proposition,  yet  through  fraternal  relations  it  has  the 
benefit  of  the  experiences  and  even  the  services  of  kin- 
dred organizations. 

It  has  required  ten  years  or  more  to  discover  these 
principles  which  are  now  most  generally  accepted.  They 
are  applicable  to  the  community  which  has  only  two 
churches  or  to  the  large  city,  to  the  county  or  the  state. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


ii  7 

The  failures  that  have  come  in  the  past  have  generally 
taken  place  because  one  or  more  of  these  principles  have 
been  ignored. 

In  June,  1920,  another  conference  on  principles  and 
methods,  known  as  the  Church  and  Community  Conven- 
tion, was  held  in  Cleveland.7  The  outstanding  impres- 
sion made  by  this  gathering,  coming  when  the  disap- 
pointment over  the  Interchurch  World  Movement  was 
so  keen,  was  expressed  in  the  words  of  one  of  the  ad- 
dresses: “We  have,  first  of  all,  such  evidence  as  the 
Christian  Church  has  never  had  in  any  previous  genera- 
tion that  the  movement  of  cooperation  is  absolutely  unde- 
featable.”  In  the  face  of  that  disappointment  there  were 
gathered  the  men  and  women,  lay,  clerical,  and  secre- 
tarial, who  during  the  World  War  and  the  chaotic  days 
following  had  seen  the  program  of  local  cooperation  car- 
ried to  successful  issues  in  an  enlarging  field.  As  a factor 
in  steadying  the  judgment  and  in  allaying  the  fears  of 
those  whose  faith  was  being  shaken,  the  value  of  this 
convention  cannot  be  overstated.  Yet  it  was  just  a quiet, 
earnest  study  of  what  had  been  taking  place  during  the 
last  years  of  the  war  and  the  first  year  of  peace,  and  of 
the  plans  by  which  greater  progress  could  be  made.  As 
the  convention  in  19x7  had  placed  special  emphasis  upon 
principles,  this  one  presented  the  programs  which  had 
been  most  fully  tested  and  approved.  It  answered,  more 
satisfactorily  than  it  has  ever  been  answered  before,  the 
question : What  can  the  churches  do  together  to  Chris- 
tianize the  communities  in  which  they  are  situated? 


7The  Convention  was  held  under  the  joint  auspices  of  the  Com- 
mission on  Councils  of  Churches  and  the  Association  of  Church 
Federation  Executive  Secretaries.  These  secretaries,  thus  or- 
ganized, have  an  annual  conference  which  is  performing  an  im- 
portant part  in  the  securing  and  training  of  executive  secretaries. 

The  reports  made  by  the  nine  commissions  to  the  convention 
are  published  under  the  title,  “Community  Programs  for  Coop- 
erating Churches,”  as  a textbook  or  manual  presented  to  the 
churches.  It  can  be  secured  from  The  Commission  on  Councils 
of  Churches,  105  East  22d  Street,  New  York. 


iiS 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


3.  What  Is  Achieved  by  Cooperation 

The  acid  test  of  an  institution  is,  what  does  it  accom- 
plish? It  is  not  always  possible  to  see  the  results;  some- 
times they  can  be  felt  but  not  seen.  The  results  of  church 
cooperation  through  permanent  interchurch  organizations 
are  discernible  both  by  the  sense  of  feeling  and  the  sense 
of  sight.  In  city  after  city  the  testimony  is  that  the  coun- 
cil of  churches  creates  an  atmosphere  in  which  those  who 
refer  to  the  whole  community,  especially  those  whose 
ways  are  ways  of  darkness,  speak  more  frequently  of 
the  Church  and  less  frequently  of  the  churches.  Those 
who  attended  the  convention  in  Cleveland  who  came  from 
communities  where  each  congregation  was  going  its  own 
separate  way  felt  a something  that  was  more  vital  to  the 
life  of  the  community  than  what  they  saw.  Church  coop- 
eration grows  because  there  is  the  spirit  of  Christian 
unity,  and  Christian  unity  waxes  strong  because  the 
churches  cooperate. 

But  there  is  plenty  to  see.  In  this  chapter  it  is  not 
possible  to  do  more  than  give  an  outline  of  the  various 
programs  of  cooperating  churches  by  reporting  a single 
instance  which  must  suffice  to  illustrate  the  whole. 

Before  the  Baltimore  Federation  of  Churches  was 
formed  a group  of  interested  laymen  and  clergymen  be- 
lieved much  could  be  done  by  the  churches  for  the  good 
of  Baltimore  which  was  not  being  done,  but  they  wished 
a definite  statement  based  on  actual  programs  tested  in 
other  cities.  The  failure  of  an  early  effort  to  do  fed- 
erated work  had  made  them  dubious  of  future  success. 
War-time  responsibilities,  however,  had  brought  them  to- 
gether and  they  were  willing  to  go  on  together,  provided 
worth-while  tasks  could  be  performed.  The  one  ques- 
tion had  to  be  answered,  “What  can  the  churches  do 
together?”  Or,  as  one  layman  put  it,  “How  can  an  exec- 
utive secretary  earn  his  salary?”  The  mental  attitude 
of  Baltimore  is  the  usual  attitude  of  other  cities  at  that 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


119 

stage  in  the  development.  The  concise  statement  of  a 
suggested  program  for  that  city  has  served  in  a dozen 
other  cities  and  will  probably  serve  in  a hundred  more, 
as  it  is  an  epitome  of  successful  undertakings  for  nearly 
a decade  in  a gradually  increasing  number  of  communi- 
ties. It  declares  that  the  federation  exists  to  fulfil  the 
following  functions : 

a.  To  make  a continuous  religious  survey,  to  furnish 
reliable  information  and  a basis  for  intelligent  action. 

b.  To  prevent  unnecessary  overlapping  and  competi- 
tion between  the  denominations,  and  to  see  that  all  com- 
munities are  adequately  churched. 

c.  To  endeavor  to  arrest  the  attention  of  the  city  with 
the  claims  of  Christ  through  a strategic  program  of 
evangelism  in  all  the  churches  individually,  and  unitedly 
where  possible,  depending  almost  entirely  on  local 
leaders. 

d.  To  study  the  great  outstanding  industrial  and  social 
needs  of  the  city,  and  to  apply  Christianity  in  an  effort 
at  solution. 

e.  To  effect  a policy  of  recreation  which  will  afford 
to  all  the  people  as  much  as  or  more  than  the  saloon  has 
given,  and  to  make  all  the  recreations  wholesome  and  up- 
lifting. 

f.  To  present  a program  of  Christian  education  that 
will  meet  the  needs  of  the  city. 

g.  To  interpret  Christian  democracy,  especially  to  the 
alien,  non-English  speaking  groups  in  the  city. 

h.  To  give  proper  publicity  to  Christianity,  to  the 
churches,  and  the  religious  interests  of  the  city. 

i.  To  make  religion  effective  and  attractive  in  the  city, 
and  to  apply  to  the  work  of  the  churches  the  best  modern 
business  principles  of  efficiency  and  economy. 

The  churches  have  generally  been  brought  together  be- 
cause of  the  desire  to  rectify  some  civic  or  social  condi- 
tion that  was  a detriment  to  the  community,  or  to  make 
more  effective  the  evangelistic  work  of  the  churches.  The 


120 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


single  effort  to  deal  with  one  or  the  other  of  these  prob- 
lems very  quickly  leads  out  into  other  avenues  of  serv- 
ice.8 Sometimes  two  or  more  groups  have  been  organized 
to  do  different  types  of  work.  The  multiplying  of  the 
groups  results  in  confusion.  Some  councils  and  federa- 
tions resulted  from  the  bringing  of  these  groups  into  one 
organization.  This  was  noticeably  the  case  in  Pittsburgh. 
Two  very  strong  bodies  developed  from  committees  com- 
posed of  clergymen  and  laymen  appointed  by  the  Union 
Ministerial  Association.  The  Council  of  the  Churches 
of  Christ  in  Pittsburgh  was  organized  to  relate  these 
lines  of  work  more  closely,  to  give  them  more  substantial 
backing,  and  to  have  an  organization  which  could  deal 
with  other  problems  which  were  of  common  concern  to 
all  the  churches.  A prominent  clergyman  moved  from 
Indianapolis  where  the  Council  had  been  operating  for 
five  years  to  Portland,  Oregon.  He  explained  his  deter- 
mination to  have  a council  in  Portland  by  saying,  “Every 
time  we  wish  to  do  anything  together  we  have  to  discuss 
it  at  length  in  the  ministers’  meeting,  then  we  appoint 
the  committee,  work  out  our  plans,  do  the  work,  throw 
away  the  machinery  we  have  constructed,  and  start  all 
over  the  next  time.  In  Indianapolis  we  had  an  organiza- 
tion that  included  all  the  elements  in  the  churches,  not 
just  the  ministers.  We  had  responsible  committees  to 
attend  to  different  matters.  Now  I have  to  give  so  much 
time  to  all  sorts  of  committees  that  as  a matter  of  self- 
protection to  preachers  and  churches  we  must  federate.” 

The  fact  that  bad  social  conditions  were  often  the 
factor  that  aroused  the  churches  to  a sense  of  their  need 
of  united  action  led  many  to  regard  the  federation  move- 
ment as  a social  reform  movement.  The  dominant  fea- 
ture of  the  movement  today,  however,  is  the  evangelistic. 

'One  of  the  outstanding  activities  of  the  Chicago  Federation, 
not  specifically  included  in  the  tasks  suggested  above,  is  the 
maintenance  of  ministries  of  preaching,  teaching,  and  comfort,  at 
such  public  institutions  as  prisons,  hospitals,  courts,  and  asy- 
lums. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


1 21 


One  of  the  greatest  services  rendered  by  the  federation 
movement  has  been  the  development  of  the  city- wide, 
simultaneous,  pastoral  evangelistic  campaign.  This  is 
coming  to  be  the  universally  accepted  method,  having 
been  tested  year  after  year  in  a number  of  cities. 

The  plan  and  record  of  the  work  in  Indianapolis  for 
the  past  six  years  along  the  line  of  “community  evan- 
gelism” is  illustrative  of  what  can  be  done.  This  plan 
comprehends  a well  organized  campaign,  beginning  Sep- 
tember ist  of  each  year  and  continuing  until  Easter 
Sunday.  No  evangelists  are  required.  A strong  evan- 
gelistic committee  of  ministers  and  laymen,  including 
representatives  from  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Associa- 
tion, Young  Women’s  Christian  Association,  Young  Peo- 
ple’s Federation,  City  Sunday  School  Association,  and 
Adult  Bible  Class  Movement,  is  appointed  each  May. 
This  committee  prepares  an  outlined  plan  of  cooperative 
evangelistic  work  covering  the  entire  period,  each  month’s 
program  containing  some  outstanding  point  of  emphasis. 
This  outline  of  evangelism  is  then  submitted  to  the 
Ministers’  Association,  where  it  is  worked  over  and 
finally  approved,  each  pastor  agreeing  to  make  it  the 
working  program  of  his  church  for  the  period  designated. 
At  certain  stated  times  throughout  the  year  all  the 
churches  of  the  city  are  open  each  night  for  intensive 
evangelistic  effort  for  two  weeks  or  longer  under  the 
leadership  of  the  pastors.  At  the  same  time  the  Federa- 
tion conducts  great  noon  downtown  theater  meetings, 
where  the  attendance  ranges  from  800  to  2,000  daily. 
This  noon  meeting  is  thoroughly  interdenominational  and 
intensely  evangelistic.  Usually  some  outstanding  pastor 
is  brought  to  the  city  to  speak  at  these  noon  meetings  and 
also  at  the  evening  meetings  in  one  or  more  of  the 
churches.  This  central  meeting  is  the  “hub”  of  the  entire 
campaign.  The  reports  from  the  churches,  gathered  im- 
mediately following  Easter  and  covering  a year,  show 
additions  to  membership  during  the  first  year  to  be  3,500; 


122 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


the  second,  7,ooo;  the  third,  8,000;  the  fourth,  8,000;  the 
fifth,  7,500.  The  present  year  promises  the  same  results. 

The  fact  that  all  the  churches  are  moving  together 
simultaneously  on  a great  program  of  evangelism  in 
which  the  responsibility  rests  altogether  upon  the  pastors 
and  the  laymen  makes  a deep  impression  upon  the  entire 
city.  By  this  means  also  the  churches  are  becoming 
trained  to  work  together,  under  central  leadership,  in 
religious  education  and  in  campaigns  for  civic  and  social 
righteousness. 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION  IN  THE  CHURCH 
AS  A WHOLE 

In  the  movement  toward  church  unity  four  separate 
lines  of  development  have  emerged.  There  is,  first,  the 
group  of  movements  aiming  at  unified  action  through 
ignoring  denominational  lines.  In  the  second  place,  there 
are  the  movements  seeking  to  secure  a greater  unity  of 
administration  among  official  agencies  of  the  denomina- 
tions. We  have,  third,  the  movement  for  a federation 
of  the  denominations ; and,  finally,  the  movement  for  an 
organic  union  of  the  churches  in  one  body.  In  each  case 
we  shall  try,  as  fairly  and  impartially  as  possible,  to  inter- 
pret the  significance  of  the  movement  and  to  appraise  its 
value  for  the  future. 

I.  The  Undenominational  Movement 

The  attempt  to  hasten  the  unification  of  Christianity  by 
ignoring  the  questions  at  issue  between  the  churches  is  a 
possibility  which  has  appealed  to  earnest  spirits  to  whom 
the  slower  and  less  dramatic  methods  of  the  patient  edu- 
cation of  the  denominations  seemed  to  involve  an  intol- 
erable delay.  Instead  of  starting  from  the  existing 
church  organizations  they  have  thought  it  possible  to 
start  from  a new  center,  untrammeled  by  the  traditions 
and  associations  of  the  past.  Such  a center  might  be 
provided  by  the  existing  Christian  Associations  of  men 
and  women,  or  by  some  new  organization  of  similar 
nature  modeled  on  their  principles  and  making  use  of 
their  experience. 

Those  who  are  attracted  by  this  idea  recall  the  great 
success  attained  by  the  Young  Men’s  and  Young  Women’s 

123 


124 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Christian  Associations  during  the  war,  and  the  generous 
support  which  they  received  from  all  sorts  and  conditions 
of  people.  This  support  was  due  to  two  factors  which 
are  not  present  in  equal  degree  in  any  of  the  other  move- 
ments toward  union  which  we  are  to  consider:  first, 
their  catholicity  and,  second,  their  simplicity.  The  Asso- 
ciations used  in  their  work  all  kinds  of  men  and  women, 
and  they  were  able  to  do  this  because  their  platforms 
ignored  the  differences  which  separate  the  churches  and 
proposed  as  the  basis  of  union  a program  of  common 
service.  Why  should  not  we  do  in  peace  what  we  so 
successfully  did  in  war  ? Why  should  we  not  deliberately 
put  behind  us  the  divisive  issues  which  now  keep  the 
churches  apart,  and  propose  a union  of  all  Christians  on 
the  basis  of  common  service? 

There  is  much  that  is  attractive  in  this  proposal,  and 
no  plan  of  Christian  union  which  covers  the  whole  ground 
can  overlook  the  need  of  organization  modeled  after  the 
plan  and  doing  the  work  of  the  present  Christian  Asso- 
ciations. But  as  a comprehensive  solution  of  the  prob- 
lem of  Christian  unity,  the  plan  has  fundamental  defects 
which  no  one  perceives  more  clearly  than  the  present 
leaders  of  the  Associations. 

We  have  referred  to  the  experience  of  the  Associations 
during  the  war  as  indicating  a possible  path  toward  Chris- 
tian union.  But  the  experience  points  rather  in  the  other 
direction.  The  Associations  could  do  what  they  did  as 
they  did  because  the  churches  were  there  to  do  the  things 
they  could  not  do.  There  was  a time  during  the  early 
days  of  the  war  when  it  was  seriously  proposed  to  banish 
the  churches  from  the  army  and  to  commit  all  the  reli- 
gious work  to  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association. 
But  apart  from  the  fact  that  the  Christian  Association 
could  assume  this  responsibility  only  by  calling  upon  the 
ordained  ministry  of  the  churches  to  enter  its  service 
and  function  in  its  name,  experience  proved  that  there 
were  phases  of  religious  need  (and  these  not  the  least 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


J25 


important)  which  could  not  be  met  in  this  way.  For 
good  or  for  evil,  the  church  consciousness — that  is,  loy- 
alty to  the  historic  institutions  of  the  Christian  religion — 
has  too  large  a place  in  the  experience  of  most  earnestly 
religious  people  to  give  promise  of  success  to  any  plan 
which  does  not  fully  recognize  it. 

What  qualifies  the  Associations  to  succeed  in  the  sphere 
they  have  undertaken  is,  we  repeat,  precisely  the  limita- 
tions which  will  make  impossible  success  in  the  other. 
They  have  deliberately  chosen  a definite  field — the  one, 
work  for  young  men ; the  other,  work  for  young  women 
— and  they  have  organized  accordingly.  They  are  or- 
ganizations of  lay  men  and  lay  women,  professing  alle- 
giance to  the  Church  and  supplementing  its  activities  in  a 
field  where  flexibility  and  initiative  are  essential.  And 
if  it  be  said  that  a new  organization  could  be  formed, 
more  comprehensive  in  scope,  more  responsible  in  consti- 
tution, the  same  difficulties  would  reappear  on  a larger 
scale.  In  the  measure  that  the  new  organization  included 
the  elements  which  now  make  up  the  organized  Christian 
churches,  it  would  meet  in  the  new  membership  the  diffi- 
culties which  now  keep  them  apart.  In  the  measure  that 
it  excluded  these  elements  it  would  be  but  a partial  make- 
shift, leaving  the  larger  problems  with  which  we  are  con- 
cerned still  unsolved.  Our  question,  therefore,  is  not 
whether  the  Associations  can  in  themselves  achieve  the 
kind  of  union  that  we  seek,  but  how  they  should  be  re- 
lated to  the  churches  so  as  to  serve  them  most  fruitfully. 

Something  of  the  same  problem  that  arises  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Christian  Associations  meets  us  also  in  the 
case  of  the  Salvation  Army.  For  certain  lines  of 
work  it  undoubtedly  has  remarkable  qualifications.  The 
question  of  its  relation  to  the  Church  is,  therefore,  an 
important  one.  We  have  already  considered  the  ques- 
tion as  to  whether  it  is  more  correctly  to  be  regarded  as 
a denomination  or  as  an  undenominational  agency.1  If 


‘Cf.  p.  91  of  this  volume. 


126 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


it  were  to  be  the  latter,  we  should  need  to  consider  here 
how  it  ought  to  be  related  to  the  organized  churches. 
Since  the  tendency  seems  to  be  for  it  to  become  practically 
a denomination  we  shall  do  no  more  here  than  raise  the 
question  and  suggest  that  any  solution  that  may  be  found 
of  the  problem  of  the  right  relations  between  the  churches 
and  the  Christian  Associations  might  have  some  applica- 
tion to  the  Salvation  Army  also. 

i.  The  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association 

The  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association  arose  out  of  a 
desire  of  Christian  laymen  to  win  to  Jesus  Christ  young 
men  outside  of  the  influence  of  the  Church.  In  order  to 
fulfil  its  religious  purpose  more  effectively  its  scope  of 
work  was  gradually  extended  until  it  included  social,  edu- 
cational, and  physical  activities.  It  has  always  insisted 
that  it  is  in  no  sense  a substitute  for  the  Church  or  inde- 
pendent of  it,  but  its  servant.  It  has  maintained  the  rule 
that  its  active  members  shall  consist  entirely  of  members 
of  evangelical  churches.  The  declaration  at  the  conven- 
tion held  in  Cincinnati  in  1913  summarizes  the  Associa- 
tion’s ideal  of  its  relation  to  the  Church : 

“The  most  important  agency  for  the  promotion  of  reli- 
gious life  is  the  Church.  No  other  institution  should  be 
permitted  to  supplant  it  or  to  ignore  its  primacy.  The 
Association  reaffirms  its  historic  policy  of  absolute  loyalty 
to  the  Church,  and  reasserts  its  intention  to  recognize  in 
all  its  activities  the  preeminence  of  the  Church,  the  exten- 
sion of  whose  influence  is  the  primary  purpose  of  the 
Association.” 

The  Association  movement  has  been,  in  form  of  or- 
ganization, undenominational.  It  has  had  no  official  or 
defined  relationships  to  any  denomination  nor  any  ec- 
clesiastical character  whatsoever.  It  has,  indeed,  repre- 
sented a certain  type  of  doctrinal  teaching,  of  mode  of 
worship,  and  of  religious  experience,  but  in  its  character 
and  government  it  has  been  undenominational.  In  its 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


127 


membership  and  its  influence,  however,  it  has  been  in 
effect  practically  interdenominational.  Its  active  mem- 
bers and  especially  its  leaders  have  been  church  members 
and  often  lay  officials  of  the  churches.  They  have  re- 
tained their  denominational  responsibility  in  connection 
with  their  work  in  the  Association.  Many  of  them  have 
been  made  by  their  Association  activity  more  intelligent 
and  zealous  members  of  their  own  denominations,  while 
their  contacts  in  the  Association  have  widened  their 
church  acquaintance  and  fellowship.  The  work  of  the 
Association  for  the  last  fifty  years  has  been  a great  school 
of  interdenominational  comradeship  among  both  laymen 
and  clergy.  No  small  part  of  the  strong  cooperative  spirit 
of  today  is  due  to  this  influence. 

The  relation  of  the  Association  to  the  churches  has 
been  a problem  from  the  beginning  and  many  discussions 
and  reports  upon  it  are  to  be  found  in  the  records  of  the 
forty  International  Y M C A Conventions.  The  problem 
is  more  pressing  and  more  perplexing  today  than  it  has 
ever  been.  As  we  saw  in  a previous  section  of  this  re- 
port, it  came  into  sharp  prominence  during  the  war.  The 
expansion  of  the  Association  work,  the  strong  growth  of 
the  cooperative  spirit  among  the  denominations  them- 
selves, and  the  development  of  institutional  churches  and 
social  service  of  many  types  in  the  denominations  and 
local  congregations  are  some  of  the  factors  which  make 
the  problem  of  urgent  present  importance.  How  should 
the  Association  be  related  now  to  the  new  denominational 
and  interdenominational  consciousness  and  activities  ? 
The  Report  of  the  Commission  on  the  Relation  of  the 
Young  Men’s  Christian  Association  to  the  Churches  made 
to  the  Fortieth  International  Convention  at  Detroit  in 
1919,  dealt  with  this  question.  It  will  be  well  to  quote  a 
few  paragraphs  from  its  extended  treatment: 

“We  must  recognize  at  the  outset  that  there  has  been 
hitherto  no  organic  connection  between  the  organized 
denominations  and  the  supervisory  boards  or  committees 


128 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


of  the  Association,  yet  the  Association  has  always  stren- 
uously claimed  that  it  springs  from  the  heart  and  life 
of  the  evangelical  denominations.  As  springing  from, 
nourished  by,  and  working  for  these  evangelical  denom- 
inations, the  Association  has  always  claimed  that  it  is  not 
outside  of  but  within  the  Church.  As  the  authoritative 
historian  of  the  movement,  Mr.  Richard  C.  Morse,  has 
put  it,  ‘By  intimate  connection  with  these  churches  the 
Association  became  an  interdenominational  organization 
and  happily  avoided  being  classified  with  undenomina- 
tional societies  outside  of  vital  union  with  the  churches. 
It  was  outside  only  of  the  divisions  separating  these 
churches.  It  was  loyally  within  their  membership  and 
fellowship.’ 

“It  is  an  obvious  fact  that  there  has  never  been  any 
official  definition  of  the  attitude  of  the  denominations 
towards  the  Association.  So  far  as  known,  none  of  them 
through  its  highest  court  or  assembly  has  attempted  to 
set  itself  in  any  positive  attitude  toward  this  movement. 
Of  some  of  the  denominations  it  may  be  said  that  prac- 
tically all  of  their  leaders  have  manifested  constant  sym- 
pathy with  the  work  of  the  Association  in  general,  even 
though  they  have  felt  compelled  to  make  criticism  of  some 
of  its  operations  in  detail. 

“On  the  other  hand,  there  are  certain  denominations 
whose  leaders  have  always  assumed  an  attitude,  not  of 
active  hostility,  but  of  aloofness,  which  has  been  express- 
ive of  their  unwillingness  to  injure  a good  work  but  of 
their  doubt  or  conviction  that  it  was  a movement  wrongly 
related  to  the  organized  ‘Church.’  This  attitude  is  trace- 
able to  several  convictions.  In  the  first  place,  the  exis- 
tence of  the  Association  seems  to  contravene  the  theory 
that  no  organized  work  should  be  carried  on  in  the  name 
of  Christian  propaganda  which  does  not  derive  its  au- 
thority directly  from  at  least  one  denomination. 

“In  the  second  place,  this  objection  based  on  a theory 
of  church  government  passes  over  into  an  objection  based 
upon  the  fact  that  the  Association  inevitably  becomes  a 
teacher  of  Christianity,  and  especially  during  the  last 
decade  has  deliberately  set  itself  forth  as  an  expounder 
of  Christian  truth.  This  it  does  through  its  Bible  classes, 
its  selection  of  speakers  at  conferences  and  discussion  of 
the  fundamentals  of  Christianity,  and  now  especially 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


129 


through  the  growing  power  of  its  publishing  house,  Asso- 
ciation Press.  These  operations,  it  is  said,  are  carried  on 
for  the  most  part  by  laymen  attached  to  a self-accred- 
ited organization,  who  have  rarely  had  special  training 
in  the  fields  in  which  they  are  concerned  either  as  them- 
selves authors  and  teachers  or  as  selectors  and  judges  of 
other  speakers  and  teachers. 

“In  the  third  place,  certain  denominations  which  cher- 
ish very  deeply  liturgical  forms  of  worship  view  with 
dislike  the  fact  that  the  Association  is  manned  most 
largely  by  men  from  denominations  which  have  no  lit- 
urgies, and  that  therefore  the  religious  meetings  which 
it  conducts  are  spreading  habits  of  communal  worship 
alien  to  those  cherished  by  the  denominations  referred  to.” 

Other  criticisms  may  be  added  to  these:  the  objection 
that  the  Association  draws  both  men  and  funds  away 
from  the  direct  work  of  the  denominations ; that  it  some- 
times represents  its  activity  at  home  and  abroad  as  su- 
perior to  that  of  the  denominations;  that,  as  in  the  war, 
it  sometimes  bears  a double  character  as  both  dependent 
upon  and  independent  of  the  churches.  The  Report  of 
the  Commission  to  the  Detroit  Convention  did  not  attempt 
to  answer  or  to  qualify  these  criticisms.  It  was  seeking  a 
constructive  solution  for  the  problem  and  it  stated  its 
views  as  follows : 

“Measures  must  be  taken  for  establishing  channels  of 
constant  consultation  between  the  denominations  and  the 
Association.  Its  policies  and  its  larger  plans  ought  not 
to  be  defined  or  undertaken  without  consultation  with 
those  who  are  not  primarily  connected  with  the  Asso- 
ciation but  who  do  in  some  official  manner  carry  the  au- 
thority of  the  denominations.  What  shape  these  consul- 
tations should  take,  what  provisions  should  be  made  for 
their  consistency,  authority,  and  effectiveness,  has  not 
been  clearly  defined  by  anyone.  While  some  will  not  be 
contented  without  a direct  representation  of  the  denomi- 
nations on  the  governing  board  of  the  Association  in  its 
national  and  local  forms,  the  majority  of  those  who  have 
been  consulted  among  the  church  leaders,  many  of  them 
clergymen  of  the  highest  standing,  desire  to  see  the  As- 


130 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


sociation  maintained  as  a layman’s  movement,  possessing 
freedom  of  initiative  and  the  peculiar  qualities  which  have 
characterized  its  best  work  and  its  highest  influence  in 
the  past.  They  deprecate  anything  like  ecclesiastical  con- 
trol of  the  Association  and  disavow  the  desire  that  it  shall 
be  dominated  by  clerical  influences.  They  believe  that 
some  way  must  be  worked  out  for  establishing  coopera- 
tion that  shall  avoid  the  positive  dangers  suggested  by  the 
words  ‘ecclesiastical  control.’ 

“It  should  be  pointed  out  as  a fact  of  the  utmost  sig- 
nificance that  when  the  Association  has  worked  in  the 
most  perfect  harmony  with  the  will  and  mind  and  spirit 
of  the  churches  it  has  been  in  those  cases  where  it  has 
been  able  to  consult  with  and  to  form  something  like 
vital  relations  with  interdenominational  institutions  . . . . 
In  fact,  it  is  where  the  churches  are  themselves  united 
that  effective  vital  union  with  the  Association  immediately 
becomes  possible.  The  suggestions  of  this  most  signifi- 
cant fact  are  illimitable.  . . . Suffice  it  to  illustrate  the 
urgency  of  the  problem  by  citing  steps  which  are  being 
taken  in  Great  Britain  and  Canada  for  its  solution.  In 
England  there  is  to  be  an  Association  headquarters,  a 
regularly  constituted  advisory  committee  nominated  in 
conference  with  the  respective  authorities  representing 
the  Christian  denominations  ‘to  advise  with  the  leaders 
of  the  Association  from  time  to  time  on  important  mat- 
ters of  high  policy  and  to  form  a Committee  of  Refer- 
ence, to  which  difficulties  (national  or  local)  that  may 
arise  between  the  churches  and  the  YMCA  in  actual 
work  may  be  referred.’  The  plans  adopted  by  the  War 
Emergency  Committee  of  the  British  Association  further 
include:  ‘To  ask  the  churches  to  receive  deputations  from 
the  YMCA  when  plans  may  be  tabled  and  cooperation 
invited.’  The  English  National  Council  has  endorsed 
these  plans.  The  Scottish  National  Council  has  gone  fur- 
ther and  adopted  the  following  resolutions : 

“ ‘ Resolved  (First)  To  affirm  its  devoted  loyalty 
to  the  Church,  and  its  determination  to  seek  in 
all  its  enterprises  to  serve  the  Church,  and  (Sec- 
ond) Humbly  to  crave  the  Venerable  the  General 
Assembly  to  receive  a Deputation  to  convey  to  the 
Assembly  its  gratitude,  and  respect,  and  the  assur- 
ance of  its  loyalty,  and  to  request  the  Assembly  to 
appoint  a Committee  to  confer  with  the  Association 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


131 

with  a view  to  discovering  means  whereby  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Church  may  be  directly  exerted  in  its 
counsels,  and  whereby  the  Association  may  have  a 
recognized  place  in  the  life  of  the  Church.’ 

“A  joint  Committee  of  the  churches  and  the  Associa- 
tion carried  the  matter  further  in  these  resolutions  unan- 
imously passed  and  then  adopted  by  the  National  Union 
of  the  Association  and  later  unanimously  accepted  by  the 
assemblies  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  and  the  United 
Free  Church: 

‘(a)  It  is  agreed  that,  inasmuch  as  it  is  the  desire 
of  the  Y M C A that  the  influence  of  the  Church 
should  be  directly  exerted  in  its  counsels,  it  is  desir- 
able that  the  various  branches  of  the  Church  should 
appoint  representatives  to  the  National  Council  of 
the  Y M C A,  to  act  as  members  of  the  Council, 
during  the  period  and  in  view  of  reconstruction,  and 
in  any  case  for  a period  not  exceeding  three  years ; 
in  the  confident  hope  that  a permanent  representation 
of  the  Church  on  the  various  Councils  of  the 

Y M C A may  thereby  be  secured,  (b)  It  is  agreed, 
in  order  to  meet  the  crave  of  the  Y M C A in  its 
original  motion  that  it  should  have  a recognized  place 
in  the  life  of  the  Church,  that  the  various  branches 
of  the  Church  should  invite  representatives  of  the 

Y M C A to  report  on  their  work  under  the  auspices 
of  a Standing  Committee  or  otherwise  as  may  be 
found  most  convenient  in  the  meetings  of  the  Assem- 
blies, Representative  Council,  or  other  Supreme 
Courts  of  the  Church ; it  being'  understood  that  the 
full  place  which  the  Y M C A will  have  in  the  life 
of  the  Church  cannot  be  determined  until  its^  relation 
to  the  Church  Guilds  and  kindred  organizations  has 
been  satisfactorily  adjusted.’ 

“In  Canada  a joint  Committee  on  the  Relationship  of 
the  Association  and  the  Churches  is  now  in  process  of 
formation,  having  been  initiated  by  the  National  Council 
of  Young  Men’s  Christian  Associations  in  February, 
1919.  This  Committee  is  to  be  representative  of  the  five 
leading  Protestant  churches  and  of  the  Association.  Up 
to  date  action  has  been  taken  by  four  of  these  churches 
and  also  by  the  Association,  and  when  the  convention  of 
the  last  of  the  churches  meets  it  is  expected  that  the 
Joint  Committee  will  be  complete.” 


132 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


The  Commission  concluded  its  discussion  of  the  need 
for  a more  definite  relation  between  the  Association  and 
the  churches  in  America  with  this  question: 

“Ought  we  now  to  consider  the  wisdom  of  asking  the 
different  denominations  to  join  with  the  Association  in 
forming  an  advisory  council  like  the  council  established 
in  London?  Or  instead  of  this  would  it  be  wise  to  ask 
the  larger  denominations  at  least  to  nominate  members, 
in  number  to  be  agreed  upon,  upon  the  International 
Committee,  having  due  regard  to  the  clear  desirability 
of  maintaining  fully  the  voluntary  lay  administration  of 
the  movement,  upon  which  the  churches  would  be  the 
first  to  insist  ?” 

The  Convention  approved  the  report  of  the  Commission 
and  voted  that  the  future  developments  of  the  Y M C A 

“shall  be  worked  out  locally  and  nationally  in  positive 
harmony  and  cooperation  with  the  evangelical  churches ; 
that  in  the  selection  and  training  of  secretaries  the  Asso- 
ciation shall  henceforth  give  due  place  to  their  thorough 
instruction  in  the  religious  aims  of  the  Association  and 
shall  give  thorough  training  in  the  Scriptures,  Christian 
doctrine,  and  the  history  and  meaning  of  the  Church  and 
of  the  churches  to  all  of  its  secretaries,  and  advanced 
work  to  those  whose  main  service  is  to  lie  in  the  field  of 
the  distinctively  religious  work  . . . that  the  Convention 
resolve  that  the  time  has  come  to  open  direct  negotiations 
with  the  leading  denominations  known  as  evangelical, 
for  a careful  study  of  the  relations  obtaining  between  the 
evangelical  churches  and  the  Association ; and  that  it  au- 
thorize the  International  Committee  to  appoint  a Com- 
mission that  shall  enter  into  these  negotiations.” 

The  way  would  therefore  appear  now  to  be  open  for 
securing  a better  understanding  and  relationship  between 
the  Association  and  the  churches. 

2.  The  Young  Women’s  Christian  Association 

The  Young  Women’s  Christian  Association  in  its  or- 
ganization and  its  relationship  to  the  churches  parallels 
in  the  main  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association  and 
need  not,  therefore,  be  discussed  in  detail.  In  the  con- 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


133 


stitution  of  the  National  Association  it  is  agreed  that 
local  Associations  affiliating  with  it  shall  require  that  the 
active  membership,  that  is,  the  voting  and  office  holding 
membership,  be  “limited  to  women  who  are  members  of 
the  Protestant  evangelical  churches.” 

At  the  national  convention  of  the  Association  in  April, 
1920,  action  was  taken  permitting  any  student  Associa- 
tions which  so  desire  to  substitute  for  church  member- 
ship as  the  basis  of  membership  in  the  Association  a per- 
sonal declaration  of  “sympathy  with  the  purpose  of  the 
Association”  and  of  intention  “to  live  as  a true  follower 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  The  taking  of  this  action, 
however,  in  no  sense  indicates  any  departure  from  the 
avowed  aim  of  the  Association  to  serve  the  Church,  since 
in  the  same  resolution  its  purpose  is  declared  to  be : 

“1.  To  lead  students  to  faith  in  God  through  Jesus 
Christ ; 

2.  To  lead  them  into  membership  and  service  in  the 
Christian  Church; 

3.  To  promote  their  growth  in  Christian  faith  and 
character,  especially  through  the  study  of  the  Bible ; 

4.  To  influence  them  to  devote  themselves  in  united 
efforts  with  all  Christians,  to  making  the  will  of  Christ 
effective  in  human  society,  and  to  extending  the  Kingdom 
of  God  throughout  the  world.” 

Provision  is  made  that  at  least  two-thirds  of  the  cab- 
inet members  and  of  the  advisory  board  “shall  be  mem- 
bers of  churches  which  are  entitled  to  representation  in 
the  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  Amer- 
ica, and  only  those  delegates  who  are  members  of  such 
churches  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  in  conventions.” 

There  are  now  more  than  2,000  local  organizations  of 
the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association  in  North  Amer- 
ica and  more  than  1,000  local  organizations  of  the  Young 
Women’s  Christian  Association.  The  men’s  organization 
has  more  than  5,000  employed  officers  and  the  women’s 
more  than  2,000.  Until  the  war  the  scope  of  the  activ- 
ities and  program  of  the  Y M C A was  much  more  elab- 


134 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


orate  than  that  of  the  YWCA.  It  is  evident,  accord- 
ingly, that  the  problem  of  unity  within  itself  and  of 
cooperation  with  the  churches  has  been  a much  more 
complicated  and  extensive  problem  with  the  Y M C A. 
Any  solution  worked  out  in  that  field  will  be  clearly  help- 
ful in  the  other,  although  the  situation  in  each  case  is 
quite  individual.  The  lack  of  ecclesiastical  authority  in 
women’s  hands,  the  general  coherence  of  the  “women’s 
movement,”  the  comparative  lack  of  overlapping  of  wom- 
en’s church  activities  and  of  the  work  of  the.  Association, 
the  smaller  volume  of  the  YWCA  enterprise,  the  strong 
emphasis  of  women  like  Miss  Dodge  upon  the  loyalty  of 
the  Association  to  the  Church  and  the  intimacy  of  their 
own  church  relationships  have  been  some  of  the  elements 
which  have  perhaps  simplified  somewhat  the  problem  of 
relation  to  the  churches  in  the  case  of  the  YWCA. 

But  the  problem  of  the  right  theory  and  working  plan 
needs  to  be  solved  here  as  in  the  Y M C A.  Shall  the 
Associations  be  voluntary  organizations  of  Christian 
people  seeking  a channel  of  service  beyond  the  worship 
and  sacraments  of  the  churches,  or  shall  they  be  recog- 
nized as  responsible  agencies  of  the  churches  entrusted 
with  a certain  section  of  the  churches’  work?  If  the 
latter,  should  they  be  related  to  some  central  cooperative 
agency  of  the  churches,  or  by  some  separate  arrange- 
ment to  each  church?  If  the  first  of  these,  is  there  any 
such  adequate  central  agency?  If  not,  how  soon  may 
there  be?  If  the  second  of  these,  would  it  be  by  action 
from  the  denomination  through  responsible  representa- 
tives, or  by  the  Associations  themselves  seeking  and 
securing  adequate  contacts?  These  are  questions  which 
will  become  more,  not  less,  pressing  as  time  goes  on  and 
to  which  an  answer  must  be  found. 

II.  The  Movement  toward  Administrative  Union 

While  the  Christian  Associations  have  thus  far  repre- 
sented great  attempts  to  secure  an  undenominational  fel- 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


135 


lowship  of  members  of  all  evangelical  churches  in  Chris- 
tian service,  other  significant  efforts  have  been  made,  as 
we  have  seen,  to  bring  the  official  agencies  of  the  denom- 
inations themselves  into  cooperative  relationships  for  a 
more  efficient  performance  of  the  Church’s  tasks.  We 
have  next  to  consider,  under  the  head  of  administrative 
union,  such  plans  as  seek  common  action  without  provid- 
ing for  that  complete  union  which  is  possible  only  by  the 
formal  action  of  the  churches  as  a whole. 

Such  common  action  may  proceed  either  from  the  top 
or  the  bottom.  It  may  originate  in  the  local  community 
or  be  initiated  by  the  boards  of  the  church.  A typical 
example  of  local  administrative  union  is  the  city  mis- 
sions council,  as  it  has  developed  in  such  centers  as  New 
York  and  Chicago,  creating  an  organization  through 
which  Christians  who  are  members  of  various  missionary 
societies  can  express  their  common  ideal  and  make  it 
effective  in  action. 

But  we  are  here  interested  primarily  in  administrative 
union  on  a national  scale.  An  outstanding  illustration 
was  the  Interchurch  World  Movement,  aiming,  as  it  did, 
to  relate  practically  all  the  missionary  and  educational 
boards  of  the  participating  churches.  This  movement, 
however,  was  preceded  by  several  other  organizations, 
which,  although  securing  cooperation  only  within  sep- 
arate fields  of  activity,  made  possible  the  more  compre- 
hensive undertaking  and  therefore  need  to  be  considered 
first. 

1.  Administrative  Union  in  Separate  Lines  of  Activity 

In  this  movement  toward  a greater  unity  in  carrying 
on  the  work  of  the  Church  the  Foreign  Missions  Confer- 
ence of  North  America,  established  in  1895,  has  been  an 
exceedingly  important  development.  It  is  an  officially 
representative  body  chosen  by,  and  reporting  to,  the  for- 
eign missionary  boards.  Provision  is  made  for  a sys- 
tematic study  of  missionary  problems.  An  annual  con- 


136 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


ference  of  the  boards  is  held  for  deliberation  and  reports 
on  questions  of  common  concern.  A Board  of  Mission- 
ary Preparation  promotes  more  effective  training  of  mis- 
sionaries and  prepares  valuable  material  to  this  end.  The 
Committee  on  Reference  and  Counsel  coordinates  the 
work  of  the  various  committees  of  the  conference  and  is, 
in  general,  a board  of  strategy  for  all  the  cooperating 
organizations  with  respect  to  missionary  policies  and 
measures.  In  some  points  the  cooperating  boards  have 
gone  so  far  as  to  carry  on  certain  activities  through 
merged  instrumentalities.  The  Committee  on  Religious 
Needs  of  Anglo-American  Communities  provides  minis- 
ters and  financial  help,  where  needed,  for  the  union 
churches  among  the  English-speaking  residents  in  the 
leading  cities  in  Asia  and  Latin  America. 

The  Committee  on  Cooperation  in  Latin  America, 
initiated  by  the  Foreign  Missions  Conference,  is  com- 
posed of  duly  chosen  representatives  of  the  missionary 
boards  in  the  United  States  and  Canada  carrying  on  work 
in  Latin  America.  It  is  their  central  clearing  house  for 
this  field  and  their  agency  of  cooperative  action.  Through 
it  they  promote  the  production  of  Christian  literature  in 
Spanish  and  Portuguese,  foster  Christian  education  and 
evangelism,  encourage  the  occupation  of  the  entire  field, 
develop  at  home  missionary  interest  in  the  Latin  Amer- 
ican countries,  and  help  to  secure  a place  for  the  Chris- 
tian spirit  in  the  relations  between  the  North  and  the 
South  American  people. 

For  a quarter  of  a century  the  Foreign  Missions  Con- 
ference has  been  a place  of  consultation,  a bond  of  union, 
and  an  agency  of  common  action  for  the  churches  in  their 
foreign  work.  Its  problem  is  the  common  problem  of  all 
such  cooperative  agencies.  How  much  authority,  if  any, 
should  be  committed  to  it?  How  far,  if  any  distance  at 
all,  should  it  be  authorized  to  go  in  responsible  adminis- 
trative action  in  behalf  of  the  churches? 

The  Home  Missions  Council,  organized  in  1908,  aims 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


137 


to  serve  the  home  mission  agencies  in  the  way  in  which 
the  Foreign  Missions  Conference  serves  its  constituent 
boards.  Its  purpose  is  “to  promote  fellowship,  confer- 
ence, and  cooperation  among  Christian  organizations  do- 
ing missionary  work  in  the  United  States,  Canada,  and 
their  dependencies.”  It  undertakes  to  secure  such  ar- 
rangements among  the  home  mission  agencies  as  will 
prevent  duplication  of  effort  and  provide  for  the  more 
adequate  occupation  of  fields,  by  agreements  to  allocate 
responsibility  for  certain  areas  to  specified  denominational 
boards.  Special  committees  deal  with  problems  arising  in 
connection  with  city,  immigrant,  and  industrial  work,  and 
with  work  for  special  groups  such  as  Indians,  Negroes, 
Spanish-speaking  peoples,  Mormons,  and  Orientals.  The 
chief  contribution  of  these  committees  is  in  their  collec- 
tive study  and  investigation,  the  results  of  which  have 
been  available  for  all  the  cooperating  bodies.  Other  com- 
mittees give  attention  to  recruiting  for  home  mission 
work,  publicity,  and  other  questions  that  can  be  handled 
together  better  than  separately. 

The  general  policy  of  the  Home  Missions  Council  is 
to  coordinate  the  activities  of  existing  agencies  rather 
than  to  undertake  tasks  of  its  own,  except  such  tasks  as 
can  not  well  be  carried  on  by  a single  denominational 
agency.  Such  general  tasks  as  these  are  increasing. 
The  war  brought  some  of  them  to  light  in  the  war  pro- 
duction communities.  The  presentation  to  the  national 
mind  of  home  missionary  problems  as  a whole,  the  re- 
cruiting of  candidates  for  the  ministry  and  other  forms 
of  church  service  as  well  as  for  home  missions,  the  work 
of  the  Church  among  immigrant  groups,  unavoidable 
relationships  with  governments — these,  and  many  other 
demands  of  a work  which  is  indivisible  have  been  draw- 
ing the  churches  together  in  cooperative  action. 

The  Council  of  Women  for  Home  Missions  (1908) 
and  the  Federation  of  Women’s  Boards  of  Foreign  Mis- 
sions of  North  America  (1916)  are  associations  of  the 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


138 

corresponding  denominational  women’s  boards,  promot- 
ing conference  among  them  and  cooperation  in  such  mat- 
ters as  the  preparation  of  literature  and  the  promotion 
of  interest  in  missionary  work. 

The  Council  of  Church  Boards  of  Education,  an  or- 
ganization of  the  official  educational  agencies  of  the 
churches  formed  in  1911,  undertakes  to  study  their  whole 
field  of  work  and  to  secure  cooperation  in  carrying  on 
their  tasks.  Its  Survey  Department  brings  together  im- 
portant material  bearing  on  the  work  of  the  American 
college,  which  is  used  to  create  interest  in  Christian  edu- 
cation. A special  commission  considers  the  standardiza- 
tion of  courses  in  church  schools  and  colleges.  Confer- 
ences of  church  workers  in  universities  are  held  with  a 
view  to  a more  effective  carrying  out  of  a common  pro- 
gram. A beginning  has  been  made  in  the  cooperative  pur- 
chasing of  college  supplies. 

The  Sunday  School  Council  of  Evangelical  Denomina- 
tions was  organized  in  1910,  as  an  association  of  the 
officially  appointed  Sunday  school  agencies  of  the 
churches,  to  confer  together  on  matters  of  common  in- 
terest, to  give  expression  to  common  views  and  decisions, 
and  to  cooperate  in  such  educational,  editorial,  mission- 
ary, and  publishing  activities  as  might  be  agreed  upon. 
One  of  its  most  important  committees  is  an  advisory 
body  on  courses  of  study  for  Sunday  schools,  consider- 
ing the  principles  on  which  courses  should  be  constructed, 
the  availability  of  existing  and  projected  courses,  and 
the  methods  to  be  employed  in  securing  courses  to  meet 
observed  needs  and  in  cooperating  with  existing  agencies 
for  making  and  publishing  the  courses.  At  a meeting  in 
June,  1920,  steps  were  taken  looking  toward  a merger 
of  the  Sunday  School  Council  with  the  International  Sun- 
day School  Association,  an  independent  and  unofficial 
association  aiming  to  promote  Sunday  school  work.2 

‘For  a fuller  discussion  of  the  bearing  of  the  Sunday  school 
movement  on  church  unity,  see  pp.  317-324  of  this  report. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


139 


What  may  we  hope  for  from  the  method  of  approach 
illustrated  by  these  various  organizations  for  adminis- 
trative efficiency  ? What  are  its  advantages,  and  what  its 
limitations?  In  what  way  must  we  supplement  it,  or 
change  our  present  method  of  procedure,  in  order  to 
attain  the  largest  measure  of  success? 

It  should  be  clearly  recognized,  in  the  first  place,  that 
the  kind  of  union  for  which  these  councils  stand  is  of  the 
highest  possible  importance.  To  the  missionary  and 
educational  boards  of  the  several  churches  is  committed 
responsibility  for  those  phases  of  the  Church’s  work  in 
which  its  unselfish  and  self-sacrificing  character  comes 
to  clearest  expression.  Their  representatives  are  men 
whose  work  brings  them  into  closest  and  most  direct  con- 
tact with  the  evils  of  disunion  and  they  have  the  experi- 
ence of  local  conditions  which  makes  their  counsel  as  to 
what  is  practicable  and  desirable  an  indispensable  con- 
dition of  success.  Nothing  has  done  more  to  promote 
the  spirit  of  unity  in  the  churches  than  the  creation  of 
agencies  through  which  the  responsible  leaders  of  the 
different  church  boards  are  brought  together  at  stated 
intervals  for  common  counsel,  and  in  certain  cases  for 
common  action.  However  hesitant  their  policies  may 
have  been,  they  have  rendered  invaluable  service  and 
have  provided  the  foundations  on  which  more  far-reach- 
ing cooperation  may  be  built. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  relation  of  the  boards  to  the 
parent  churches  is  such  that  the  limits  within  which 
they  may  wisely  act  without  explicit  reference  to  the 
bodies  from  which  they  derive  their  authority  is  very 
narrow.  When  we  measure  what  has  been  done  by  what 
we  would  wish  to  have  seen  done  since  the  Home  Mis- 
sions Council  and  the  Foreign  Missions  Conference,  to 
mention  no  others,  came  into  existence,  one  is  impressed 
with  the  fact  that  without  more  drastic  action  at  the  top 
there  is  not  much  more  to  be  hoped  for  from  this  method 
alone  than  has  already  been  attained.  The  more  com- 


140 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


plete  an  organization  becomes,  the  larger  the  number  of 
units  represented,  the  more  difficult  it  becomes  to  move 
the  whole  faster  than  the  pace  of  the  slowest  members. 
It  was  the  desire  to  avoid  such  delays  that  gave  rise  to 
the  Interchurch  World  Movement. 

2.  Administrative  Union  on  an  Inclusive  Scale 

The  Interchurch  World  Movement  of  North  America, 
originating  in  a conference  of  representatives  of  various 
missionary  and  benevolent  boards  of  the  churches  in  De- 
cember, 1918,  developed  rapidly  into  the  largest  coop- 
erative effort  yet  undertaken.  It  went  beyond  all  the 
organizations  above  described  by  seeking  to  bring  to- 
gether not  only  the  agencies  engaged  in  a common  line 
of  work,  but  practically  all  the  official  agencies  of  the 
churches.  The  movement  was  inaugurated  as  a volun- 
tary effort  of  the  participating  boards,  the  General  Com- 
mittee being  appointed  without  waiting  for  denomina- 
tional assemblies  to  give  official  authorization.  As  the 
movement  developed,  the  importance  of  representative 
relationships  became  apparent.  Consequently  in  Sep- 
tember, 1919,  the  General  Committee  voted  to  make  itself 
a more  representative  body  by  providing  that  at  least 
two-thirds  of  its  membership  should  be  composed  of 
persons  approved  by  the  various  denominations. 

The  generally  accepted  point  of  view  was  that  the 
Movement,  being  brought  into  existence  to  meet  the 
urgent  need  for  expansion  in  missionary  work  after  the 
war,  was  not  a permanent  organization,  and  that  it  was 
not  to  be  an  administrative  agency.  The  Cleveland  Meet- 
ing of  the  General  Committee  declared: 

“To  meet  the  natural  and  proper  inquiries  of  our 
churches  as  to  the  character  and  purpose  of  the  movement 
we  deem  it  wise  to  state:  that  the  Interchurch  World 
Movement  is  a cooperative  effort  of  the  missionary,  edu- 
cational, and  other  benevolent  agencies  of  the  evangelical 
churches  of  the  United  States  and  Canada  to  survey 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


141 

unitedly  their  common  present  tasks,  and  simultaneously 
and  together  secure  the  necessary  resources  of  men  and 
money  and  power  required  for  these  tasks ; that  it  is  a 
spiritual  undertaking  of  survey,  education,  and  inspira- 
tion; that  it  is  an  instrumentality  of  cooperation  and  coor- 
dination of  administrative  agencies  and  designed  to  serve, 
not  to  supplant  them.  It  is  this  positive  character  of  the 
movement  that  we  desire  to  exalt.  At  the  same  time,  to 
prevent  misapprehension,  we  affirm  our  definite  under- 
standing that  this  is  not  an  ecclesiastical  movement  nor 
an  effort  at  organic  union.  It  will  not  disturb  the  auton- 
omy or  interfere  with  the  administration  of  any  church 
or  board.  Neither  will  it  undertake  to  administer  or  to 
expend  funds  for  any  purpose  beyond  its  own  proper 
administrative  expenses.  It  has  a definite  and  temporary 
mission.  It  will  not  duplicate  or  conflict  with  other  de- 
nominational agencies.  It  does  not  assume  responsibility 
or  authority  in  questions  of  church  or  missionary  policy, 
recognizing  that  these  belong  to  the  cooperating  agencies 
and  organizations.  And  we  disclaim  all  statements,  by 
whomsoever  made,  contrary  to  this  declaration  of 
principles.” 

And  the  General  Committee  at  Atlantic  City  in  Jan- 
uary, 1920,  said: 

“It  is  further  recognized  that  the  Interchurch  World 
Movement  is  not  organized  for  the  purpose  of  adminis- 
tering missionary  or  educational  enterprises,  or  for  de- 
termining the  policies  of  the  several  denominations,  but 
leaves  all  such  matters  in  the  hands  of  the  churches  and 
the  denominational  or  interdenominational  agencies  rec- 
ognized by  them.  In  its  surveys  it  confines  its  service  to 
ascertaining  and  portraying  the  facts,  to  calling  the  atten- 
tion of  the  churches  and  their  agencies  to  the  needs  re- 
vealed by  these  facts  and  to  encouraging  the  churches, 
through  cooperative  effort,  to  work  out  the  problems  in- 
volved. The  authority  of  the  movement  rests  solely  in 
the  challenge  of  the  facts  it  is  able  to  present.  It  is 
therefore  recommended  that  the  determination  and  the 
initiation  of  policies  for  meeting  the  situations  revealed 
shall  be  understood  to  be  wholly  with  the  churches  and 
their  own  regularly  constituted  agencies.” 

The  Movement  culminated  in  a “united  and  simulta- 


142 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


neous”  financial  campaign  in  May,  in  which  each  denom- 
ination sought  to  gather  the  fullest  results  from  its  own 
field  and  in  which  the  Movement  sought  to  gather  from 
“friendly  citizens,”  as  they  were  called — that  is,  the  ele- 
ment of  the  community  sympathetic  with  the  Protestant 
churches  though  not  definitely  related  to  them — the  sum 
of  $40,000,000,  which  was  to  cover  the  expense  of  the 
Movement  for  the  year  just  ending  and  for  the  year 
ensuing,  and  to  enable  the  churches  to  carry  out  advance 
undertakings.  For  various  reasons  this  general  cam- 
paign almost  entirely  failed,  with  the  result  that  for 
financial  reasons,  if  for  no  others,  the  Movement  had  to 
end  or  undergo  radical  transformation.  Most  of  the 
denominational  campaigns  associated  in  the  movement 
met,  however,  with  a large  degree  of  success. 

What  lay  behind  the  Movement  and  what  it  sought  to 
do  are  well  set  forth  in  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on 
Reorganization,  presented  to  the  General  Committee  of 
the  Movement  on  June  18,  1920: 

“The  Committee  on  Reorganization  in  submitting  its 
recommendations  as  to  the  future  program  and  structure 
of  the  Interchurch  Movement  desires  first  of  all  to  recall 
to  the  mind  of  the  General  Committee  the  principles  and 
purposes  out  of  which  the  Movement  sprang  at  its  incep- 
tion eighteen  months  ago.  Four  chief  forces  lay  be- 
hind it : 

“The  first  was  the  growing  sense  of  kinship  among  the 
evangelical  churches  and  the  desire  to  give  it  expression. 

“The  second  was  the  consciousness  of  the  fragmentary 
and  inadequate  effort  hitherto  put  forth  to  carry  out  the 
program  of  world  service  to  which  the  Church  is  called. 

“The  third  was  the  realization  of  the  vast  and  urgent 
tasks  laid  upon  us  by  the  effects  of  the  Great  War. 

“The  fourth  was  the  hope  and  belief  that  by  coopera- 
tive action  larger  enlistment  of  life  and  treasure  could 
be  secured  and  better  results  obtained  for  energy  exerted. 

“With  these  aims  in  view  it  was  agreed  that  the  par- 
ticipating denominational  agencies  should  associate  them- 
selves in  a concerted  plan,  by  which  on  the  one  hand  they 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


M3 


should  conduct  upon  parallel  lines  their  respective  for- 
ward movements  and  on  the  other  should  seek  to  accom- 
plish through  the  Interchurch  Movement  organization 
certain  things  impossible  to  any  one  of  them  acting  alone, 
but  wholly  possible  to  all  acting  together.  Among  these 
common  undertakings  the  following  were  deemed  of  first 
importance : 

“1.  To  make  a thorough  analysis  of  the  total  world  task 
of  the  Church,  locality  by  locality  and  item  by  item,  to  the 
end  that  neglected  fields  might  be  discovered;  important 
existing  work  strengthened;  unjustifiable  work  elimi- 
nated ; and  helpful  relationships  between  all  agencies  and 
workers  established. 

“2.  To  conduct  a continuous  campaign  of  education, 
making  use  of  ascertained  facts,  projected  upon  broad 
and  varied  lines  and  carried  out  upon  a scale  adequate 
to  secure  the  attention  of  the  nations  at  large  and  if  pos- 
sible to  convince  the  judgment  and  awake  the  interest 
of  millions  of  people  now  wholly  or  largely  untouched 
by  Christ’s  call  to  world  service. 

“3.  To  give  cooperative  leadership  to  the  Church  in 
the  fields  of  industrial  relations,  philanthropy,  evangelism, 
and  education,  to  the  end  that  the  Church  may  more 
wisely  and  amply  meet  her  obligations  in  these  areas  of 
service. 

“4.  To  conduct  a campaign  for  recruits  to  the  minis- 
try and  mission  service. 

“5.  To  make  simultaneous  and  united  appeal  for  funds, 
sufficient  in  amount  to  support  the  sort  of  effort  at  home 
and  abroad  demanded  by  the  conditions  of  the  hour. 

“Within  the  bounds  of  these  aims  the  Movement  has 
proceeded  substantially ; a year  was  spent  in  fashioning 
plans,  enlisting  the  cooperating  agencies,  completing  the 
organization,  and  launching  the  world  survey.  Six 
months  were  given  to  intensive  work  along  the  lines  above 
named.  The  undertaking  has  proved,  as  was  anticipated, 
huge  and  difficult.  The  prevalent  shortage  of  workers, 
scarcity  of  office  room,  and  prohibitory  scale  of  costs 
have  created  obstacles  at  every  step.  Certain  serious  mis- 
takes in  method  are  now  seen  to  have  been  made.  De- 
spite it  all,  there  stands  to  the  credit  of  the  activities  of 
these  months  a volume  of  achievement  which  in  the  judg- 
ment of  your  Committee  reveals  the  validity  of  the  pur- 


144 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


pose  of  the  Movement  and  its  well-nigh  boundless  possi- 
bilities if  carried  out  in  full  development.  The  survey 
of  hospitals  and  homes  in  America  is  largely  completed 
and  will  constitute  a storehouse  of  information  to  all 
denominations  which  wish  to  meet  their  duty  in  these 
often  neglected  fields.  The  survey  of  educational  institu- 
tions is  also  well  toward  completion.  The  religious  edu- 
cation survey  is  also  approaching  completion.  The  for- 
eign missionary  surveys  will  constitute  the  first  compre- 
hensive picture  of  the  non-Christian  world  which  the 
Church  has  ever  possessed.  The  home  mission  surveys, 
by  far  the  most  difficult  and  costly  portion  of  the  task, 
are  well  under  way. 

“The  work  taken  over  from  the  Missionary  Education 
Movement  and  the  Laymen’s  Missionary  Movement  has 
been  carried  strongly  forward,  as  has  also  the  publica- 
tion of  World  Outlook,  Everyland,  and  La  Nueva  De- 
mocracia.  In  the  field  of  educational  publicity  multiplied 
conventions  and  conferences,  local  and  state  and  national, 
have  brought  to  some  millions  of  people  a new  sense  of 
the  nature  and  urgency  of  the  Church’s  task.  Through 
the  pictured  and  printed  page  the  Christian  world  mes- 
sage has  been  widely  proclaimed  and  pressed  home.  The 
appeal  for  life  work  recruits  and  for  quickened  evange- 
listic activity  has  been  widely  made. 

“Various  inquiries  in  the  industrial  realm  have  been 
conducted  and  one  in  particular  dealing  with  the  steel 
strike.  A financial  campaign  has  been  conducted  in  which 
nearly  every  participating  denomination  has  registered  a 
marked  advance  on  previous  giving,  in  some  cases  such 
advance  being  revolutionary  in  degree.  Connected  with 
all  these  activities  has  been  a wide  leavening  of  the  public 
thought  and  a clearer  realization  of  the  unity  and  im- 
mensity of  the  responsibility  of  the  Church  of  Christ.” 

On  the  basis  of  this  statement  this  Committee  on  Reor- 
ganization recommended  that  the  Movement  should  go 
on  but  that  its  budget  of  expense  should  be  cut  down  to 
one-tenth  or  even  one-twentieth  of  what  it  had  been,  that 
there  should  be  a “sharp  limitation  of  the  functions  and 
activities  of  the  Movement  to  the  fundamental  lines  orig- 
inally contemplated,  these  being  of  such  nature  as  to 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


145 


afford  a channel  of  cooperation  for  the  participating 
mission  boards  and  denominational  agencies,”  that  all  the 
old  officers  having  resigned  a new  official  staff  should  be 
formed,  and  that  there  should  be  “the  establishment  of 
closely  coordinated  relations  between  all  interdenomina- 
tional bodies  (and)  the  use  of  every  effort  to  articulate 
the  Movement  in  the  closest  way  with  the  denominational 
agencies  which  constitute  it.”  Since  the  time  when  this 
statement  was  made  there  has  been  a growing  tendency 
to  believe  that  the  Movement  itself  should  be  discontinued. 
The  means  of  conserving  the  values  at  which  the  Move- 
ment aimed  have  not  yet  been  fully  agreed  upon. 

This  is  not  the  place  for  any  extended  review  of  this 
interesting  experiment,  but  it  is  the  place  for  an  earnest 
attempt  to  draw  out  some  of  its  lessons  for  the  future 
with  regard  to  movements  of  cooperation  and  union. 

On  the  one  hand,  the  Interchurch  Movement  repre- 
sented some  right  and  necessary  ideas  and  rendered  a 
useful  service  in  bringing  these  ideas  forward  and  reveal- 
ing their  place  in  the  kind  of  movements  we  are  consid- 
ering in  this  report. 

1.  It  recognized  the  existence  of  a spirit  of  cooperation 
and  unity  in  the  churches,  which  was  ready  to  go  very 
much  further  than  it  had  been  led  hitherto  and  which 
wanted  larger  forms  of  expression  than  had  as  yet  been 
provided  for  it.  It  rested  on  the  fact  that  the  great  mass 
of  the  Christian  people  have  a common  view,  that  they  are 
facing  common  needs  with  common  resources,  and  that 
there  is  only  one  program,  the  common  program  of 
Christ,  for  meeting  these  needs.  This  is  a unity  which 
demands  some  definite  form  of  union. 

2.  It  proposed  to  face  the  whole  duty,  to  lay  before 
men  the  adequate  scale  of  enterprise  and  endeavor. 
Such  ideas  dislodge  men’s  views  from  trivialities  and 
summon  their  best  selves  to  loyalty  and  obedience.  Great 
undertakings  are  unifying. 

3.  It  set  out  accordingly  to  gather  the  facts  about 


146 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


human  needs  and  the  inadequacy  of  the  effort  which 
men  were  making  to  meet  them.  It  proposed  to  publish 
these  facts  and  to  interpret  their  meaning  and  to  reveal 
afresh  in  this  way  the  indispensable  task  of  Christianity 
in  the  world.  This  process  is  a welding  process.  The 
churches  could  carry  it  on  only  in  cooperation  and  all 
its  results  add  to  the  pressure  for  cooperation. 

4.  It  provided  a coordination  of  a score  of  denomina- 
tional forward  movements,  which  were  seeking  by  com- 
mon methods  to  accomplish  common  aims  and  which 
needed  to  use  each  other’s  experience  and  to  amass  a 
common  momentum. 

On  the  other  hand,  such  lessons  as  these  already 
emerge  which  we  need  to  learn  from  our  experience  in 
the  Interchurch  World  Movement: 

1.  The  body  of  separatist,  or  immobile,  or  distrustful 
spirits  which  must  be  reckoned  with  is  immense.  Some 
for  the  sake  of  conscience,  some  from  conviction,  and 
some  from  lethargy,  are  set  against  all  forms  of  inter- 
denominational union.  Others  wish  a brotherly  and  spir- 
itual cooperation  but,  disapproving  of  all  forms  of  or- 
ganic union,  fear  any  administrative  union  that  may  lead 
in  that  direction. 

2.  In  cooperative  movements  it  is  essential  that  the 
principles  and  province  of  the  cooperation  proposed 
should  be  clearly  thought  out  and  agreed  upon,  that  all 
that  is  done  should  be  thought  through  as  to  its  relation 
to  the  accepted  plan,  that  doubtful  and  inconsistent  ele- 
ments and  purposes  should  be  eliminated  or  consciously 
reconciled.  These  were  among  the  difficulties  of  the 
Interchurch  Movement.  Some  joined  the  Movement 
with  the  understanding  that  it  was  temporary;  others 
with  the  view  that  it  was  a beginning  which  must  be  car- 
ried forward  into  a new,  permanent  form.  Some  joined 
on  condition  that  it  would  be  promotive  only  and  not 
administrative ; others  saw  in  it  a chance  to  displace  old 
and,  as  they  deemed  them,  slow  and  inadequate  adminis- 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


147 


trative  agencies.  Some  based  their  cooperation  on  the 
assurance  that  denominational  interests  and  prerogatives 
would  not  be  disturbed,  and  that  the  Movement  could 
operate  through  denominational  grooves;  others  deemed 
this  an  opportunity  to  transcend  these.  Sooner  or  later 
these  and  other  contrasted  tendencies  were  sure  to  breed 
difficulty  and  misunderstanding. 

3.  The  Movement  began  as  an  irresponsible  and  non- 
representative movement.  Individuals  launched  it  and 
framed  its  organization.  They  sought  to  secure  the  en- 
dorsement of  their  boards,  but  even  when  this  was  gained 
there  were  lacking  the  confidence  and  responsibility  which 
go  with  authorized  representation.  And  it  was  soon  seen 
also  that  the  endorsement  of  boards  was  not  enough. 
Such  a movement  committed  the  denominations  as  such 
and  involved  their  most  vital  interests,  so  that  action  by 
the  highest  official  denominational  judicatories  became 
inevitable.  But  such  submission  to  the  judicatories  came 
too  late.  It  ought  to  have  been  done  before  commit- 
ments had  been  made  and  courses  of  action  embarked 
upon  about  which  the  churches  felt  they  should  have  been 
consulted  in  advance.  The  whole  Movement,  difficult  as 
this  course  might  have  been,  should  have  been  built  upon 
such  prior  denominational  acceptances.  It  is  evident  that 
cooperation  involving  denominational  life  needs  denomi- 
national authority. 

4.  The  Interchurch  Movement  suffered  greatly  from 
the  pressure  of  inadequate  time.  The  task  which  it  un- 
dertook called  for  a much  longer  period  than  was  allowed 
by  circumstances.  Already  several  of  the  leading  denom- 
inations had  carried  through  their  own  denominational 
campaigns,  and  could  not  enter  freely  into  this  Move- 
ment. Other  denominations  expected  to  do  the  same  in 
the  spring  of  1920  and  could  not  delay.  The  Movement 
was  accordingly  forced  into  a time  schedule  which  was 
impossible.  It  attempted  to  carry  through  a program  of 
common  action  on  a scale  that  required  the  hearty  coop- 


148 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


eration  not  only  of  the  boards,  but  of  the  denominations 
as  a whole,  without  taking  time  for  the  preliminary  edu- 
cation which  alone  could  make  success  possible.  Had 
this  education  taken  place,  the  failure  of  the  financial 
drive  might  not  have  led  to  withdrawal  by  cooperat- 
ing bodies,  but  only  to  a revision  of  plans  which  would 
have  brought  the  enterprise  within  the  limits  of  the  prac- 
ticable. All  cooperative  movements  must  go  more  slowly 
than  the  fast  are  ready  to  go.  If  not,  the  slow  will  not 
be  carried  along.  Since  growth  is  organic  and  all  union 
measures  represent  growth,  they  must  be  marked  by  the 
necessary  patience. 

5.  In  cooperative  action  as  in  individual  character, 
money  and  ideas  about  money  are  a searching  test.  The 
vast  scale  of  operating  expenditures ; the  policy  of  financ- 
ing the  Movement  by  loans ; the  assumption  of  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  financial  psychology  of  war  times ; the 
appeal  to  givers,  especially  outside  of  the  churches,  on 
the  ground  of  bigness  and  in  disregard  of  evangelical 
motives ; the  expression  of  the  Movement,  both  because 
and  in  spite  of  itself,  in  money  rather  than  in  moral  and 
spiritual  terms  were  sources  of  fatal  weakness.  Many 
other  cooperative  movements  have  been  made  pitiful  by 
their  niggardly  financial  aspect.  This  movement  fell  over 
the  precipice  at  the  opposite  extreme.  Cooperative  move- 
ments, it  is  seen,  must  protect  their  financial  character 
with  the  most  exacting  safeguards,  even  though  such  cau- 
tion is  painfully  hampering. 

6.  The  wide  scope  of  action  proposed  to  itself  by  the 
Interchurch  Movement  carried  it  into  difficult  fields, 
where  wide  divergence  of  judgment  separates  equally 
conscientious  Christian  men.  If  a movement  must  deal 
with  such  issues  it  must  be  ready  to  take  the  conse- 
quences and  must  be  sure  that  this  is  part  of  its  primary 
and  unmistakable  business.  On  the  other  hand,  coopera- 
tive movements  have  a difficult  task  in  limiting  their  field 
without  opening  themselves  to  condemnation  for  timidity 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


149 


or  evasion.  Each  of  our  great  cooperative  movements  of 
the  present  time  is  confronted  with  this  problem  in  many 
forms. 

7.  Both  from  the  Interchurch  Movement  and  from  the 
agencies  combined  in  the  war  work  campaigns,  the  Young 
Men’s  Christian  Association,  the  Young  Women’s  Chris- 
tian Association,  the  Knights  of  Columbus,  the  Salvation 
Army,  and  others,  as  well  as  from  the  Federal  Council 
of  Churches  also,  a grave  lesson  is  to  be  learned  as  to 
the  character  and  limits  of  organized  publicity.  It  is 
a lesson  for  all  agencies,  denominational  and  interde- 
nominational— the  lesson  that  good  work  is  its  own  best 
advertisement  and  that  all  excessive  and  self-exploiting 
publicity  is  a boomerang.  Publicity  that  is  to  be  truly 
Christian  must  be  characterized  by  a certain  institutional 
disinterestedness,  seeking  the  exaltation  not  of  a given 
organization  but  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

8.  The  Interchurch  Movement  was  led  by  earnest  and 
unselfish  men  who  worked  with  all  their  powers,  but  who 
essayed  a task  too  great  for  any  group.  It  was  found 
impracticable  to  get  any  sufficient  number  of  business 
laymen  to  act  on  the  directing  committees.  Adequate 
counsel  of  this  kind  is  indispensable.  Two  or  three  such 
men  were  left  to  carry  a superhuman  load.  Cooperative 
movements  find  the  task  of  securing  a leadership  that  will 
please  everybody  well  nigh  impossible.  The  best  amends 
that  can  be  made  are  to  have  directing  committees 
which  are  as  far  as  possible  actually  representative,  and 
to  enlist  both  the  balancing  judgment  and  the  energy  of 
competent  laymen.8 

9.  It  is  seen  now  that  the  difference  between  an  inter- 
church movement  and  a super-church  movement  is  not 
always  easy  to  keep  clear  and  steady.  A new  movement, 
if  aggressive  and  energetic  and  aspiring,  will  seem  to  the 

3The  question  may  fairly  be  raised  whether  some  of  the  lessons 
of  good  and  ill  which  have  been  suggested  by  the  Interchurch 
World  Movement  may  not  be  drawn  also  from  some  of  the  sep- 
arate denominational  forward  movements. 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


150 

conservative  minds  to  be  really  a super-  rather  than  an 
inter-denominational  movement,  and  it  may  easily  in  fact 
become  so,  duplicating  or  ignoring  or  supplanting  activ- 
ities which  it  regards  as  too  cautious. 

This  was  manifest  to  any  one  who  followed  the  dis- 
cussion in  the  ecclesiastical  bodies  which  withdrew  from 
the  Movement.  Apart  from  the  justifiable  criticism  of  the 
Movement  along  the  lines  already  suggested,  there  was 
an  undercurrent  of  dissatisfaction  which  proceeded  from 
those  who  felt  that,  under  the  guise  of  cooperation  in  an 
enterprise  of  a modest  and  legitimate  nature,  pressure 
was  being  brought  to  bear  upon  them  to  surrender  the 
autonomy  they  had  hitherto  enjoyed  and  to  commit  the 
charge  of  the  most  important  enterprises  of  the  Church 
to  men  not  responsible  to  its  authority  or  represented  in 
its  counsels.  Among  churches  with  a strongly  developed 
self-consciousness,  as  among  nations,  freedom  from  ex- 
ternal control  has  ever  been  a most  valued  possession, 
and  no  movement  for  Christian  unity  that  does  not  rec- 
ognize this  fact  and  deal  with  it  intelligently  can  hope 
to  succeed. 

What  we  must  have,  then,  if  we  are  to  carry  our  prac- 
tical cooperation  beyond  the  point  which  it  has  reached 
today  and  develop  an  interchurch  organization  of  a 
strength  and  effectiveness  commensurate  with  the  great- 
ness of  the  task,  is  to  marry  the  movement  toward  unity 
to  the  denominational  consciousness,  so  that  the  inter- 
church program,  in  whatever  form  it  is  finally  approved, 
shall  be  felt  by  each  of  the  cooperating  bodies  to  be  just 
as  much  its  own  as  the  work  which  is  done  in  the  more 
narrowly  denominational  sphere.  To  create  such  a con- 
sciousness and  to  provide  organs  for  its  effective  expres- 
sion is  the  aim  of  the  third  type  of  movement,  which  we 
may  classify  under  the  head  of  federal  union. 

III.  The  Movement  toward  Federal  Union 

The  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


I5i 

America,  as  officially  constituted  by  the  action  of  the 
highest  judicatories  of  the  churches,  represents  the  effort 
to  go  beyond  administrative  union  alone  by  securing  a 
federation  of  the  denominations  themselves. 

The  Federal  Council  dates  definitely  from  1908,  when 
a plan  of  federation  had  been  ratified  by  the  national  as- 
semblies of  thirty  denominations.  This  plan  of  federa- 
tion had  been  recommended  in  1905  by  the  Interchurch 
Conference  on  Federation  at  Carnegie  Hall,  New  York, 
made  up  of  representatives  appointed  by  the  various 
evangelical  denominations. 

The  object  of  the  Federal  Council  is  declared  to  be: 

“1.  To  express  the  fellowship  and  catholic  unity  of  the 
Christian  Church. 

“2.  To  bring  the  Christian  bodies  of  America  into 
united  service  for  Christ  and  the  world. 

“3.  To  encourage  devotional  fellowship  and  mutual 
counsel  concerning  the  spiritual  life  and  religious  activ- 
ities of  the  churches. 

“4.  To  secure  a larger  combined  influence  for  the 
churches  of  Christ  in  all  matters  affecting  the  moral  and 
social  condition  of  the  people,  so  as  to  promote  the  appli- 
cation of  the  law  of  Christ  in  every  relation  of  human  life. 

“5.  To  assist  in  the  organization  of  local  branches  of 
the  Federal  Council  to  promote  its  aims  in  their  com- 
munities.” 

The  Constitution  of  the  Federal  Council  provides  that 
it  has  “no  authority  ...  to  limit  the  full  autonomy  of 
the  Christian  bodies  adhering  to  it.”  No  action  is  legally 
binding  upon  any  of  the  constituent  bodies  until  its  rec- 
ommendations have  been  ratified  by  that  body. 

The  Council  consists  of  about  400  representatives  offi- 
cially named  by  the  various  denominations  and  meets 
once  in  four  years.  The  Executive  Committee,  which 
acts  for  the  Council  between  sessions,  consists  of  about 
100  members  likewise  designated.  The  Administrative 
Committee,  meeting  monthly,  which  had  hitherto  been  a 


152 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


subcommittee  of  the  Executive  Committee,  was  recon- 
stituted in  1919  so  as  to  consist  chiefly  of  direct  repre- 
sentatives appointed  by  the  constituent  denominations. 
It  includes  also  representatives  of  the  following  affiliated 
bodies : the  Home  Missions  Council,  the  Council  of 
Church  Boards  of  Education,  the  Sunday  School  Coun- 
cil of  Evangelical  Denominations,  the  Council  of  Women 
for  Home  Missions,  and  the  Federation  of  Women’s 
Boards  of  Foreign  Missions.  A consultative  member  is 
appointed  by  the  Foreign  Missions  Conference.  A few 
additional  members  of  the  committee  are  members  at 
large  or  appointed  because  of  their  connection  with  other 
organizations  which  are  carrying  on  important  religious 
work. 

The  Federal  Council  serves  as  a clearing  house  for  a 
considerable  number  of  denominational  and  interdenom- 
inational activities,  speaks  in  a representative  capacity 
for  the  evangelical  churches  of  the  United  States,  and 
acts  for  them  in  several  lines  of  work  through  various 
commissions.  These  commissions  are  of  two  kinds, 
those  which  aim  to  coordinate  the  activities  of  existing 
denominational  agencies,  such  as  the  Commission  on 
Evangelism  and  the  Commission  on  the  Church  and  So- 
cial Service,  and  those  which  carry  out  tasks  for  which 
separate  denominational  agencies  do  not  exist,  such  as 
the  Commission  on  Relations  with  the  Orient,  the  Com- 
mission on  Interchurch  Federations,  and  the  Commis- 
sion on  Relations  with  Religious  Bodies  in  Europe.  In 
promoting  united  action  on  moral  and  social  views,  in 
cultivating  the  spirit  of  fellowship  and  cooperation  among 
the  churches,  and  in  developing  local  federations,  the 
Federal  Council  has  rendered  a service  of  unquestion- 
able value  and  exerted  a potent  influence  in  furthering 
Christian  unity. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  experience  of  the  Federal  Coun- 
cil and  of  the  churches  in  the  Council  during  more  than 
a decade  has  made  these  points  clear : 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


153 


1.  The  churches  should  entrust  their  central  coopera- 
tive agencies  with  responsibility  for  a larger  measure  of 
direct  action  in  their  behalf.  The  Federal  Council  has 
hitherto  pursued  a course  as  careful  and  conservative  as 
the  course  of  the  Interchurch  Movement  was  aggressive 
and  radical.  It  felt  that  so  much  was  at  stake  that  it 
must  not  make  a false  step  and  imperil  the  cause  of  coop- 
eration by  actions  which  might  seem  premature  and  un- 
warranted to  the  allied  churches.  The  result  has  been 
that  it  has  been  criticized  because,  to  quote  the  words  of 
one  of  its  friendly  supporters,  “It  does  little  construc- 
tive work.  It  has  many  meetings,  passes  many  resolu- 
tions, publishes  many  volumes,  arranges  many  pleasant 
international  visits,  but  does  not  accomplish  definite  re- 
sults. Its  main  efforts  are  given  to  making  the  wheels 
go  round.  The  Council,  while  nominally  representing  the 
churches,  is  not  trusted  by  them  with  any  responsibility 
and  therefore  must  feel  around  for  jobs  for  itself  in 
order  to  keep  busy.  These  surveys,  pronouncements, 
etc.,  when  made,  do  not  represent  anyone  in  particular 
and  no  one  pays  much  attention  to  them  except  to  criti- 
cize their  claim  that  they  represent  the  churches.”  This 
criticism  does  not  recognize  the  real  achievements  of 
the  Council,  but  it  does  indicate  a limitation  imposed  by 
the  slowness  of  the  cooperative  bodies  to  entrust  respon- 
sibility to  it. 

2.  The  Council  has  the  great  advantage  of  a clear  con- 
stitution with  a definite  statement  of  its  functions,  but 
it  has  also  the  accompanying  disadvantages.  Bodies 
which  deprecate  any  closer  union  of  the  denominations 
welcome  the  Federal  Council  as  a breakwater  against 
organic  church  union  and  as  an  expression  of  a sincere 
spirit  of  fellowship  which  does  not  involve  any  real  con- 
solidation of  action.  Our  friendly  critic  says  on  this 
point,  probably  exaggerating  the  case  somewhat : 
“Most  of  the  churches  continue  their  membership  in  the 
Council  because  it  signifies  their  belief  in  the  principle 


154 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


of  Christian  cooperation,  not  because  of  any  service  they 
expect  from  the  Council  or  because  they  take  it  seri- 
ously as  an  organization  that  counts  in  the  aggressive 
program  of  the  Church  in  the  world.” 

3.  The  comment,  sometimes  heard,  that  the  personnel 
of  the  Federal  Council  tends  to  represent  chiefly  one  wing 
of  the  churches  suggests  that,  although  it  is  difficult,  it  is 
necessary  to  secure  in  the  directing  force  of  cooperative 
movements  as  wide  a range  of  theological  and  social  con- 
viction as  the  constituency  embraces  and  to  balance  the 
elements  as  nearly  as  possible  in  the  proportions  of  that 
constituency.  It  is  also  highly  desirable  to  enlist  in  the 
work  of  the  Council  a larger  body  of  lay  counsel,  such 
as  has  been  gathered  in  the  International  Committee  of 
Young  Men’s  Christian  Associations  and  as  is  found  in 
the  highest  courts  of  our  churches. 

The  existing  situation  with  regard  to  the  Federal  Coun- 
cil may  perhaps  be  fairly  summarized  somewhat  as  fol- 
lows: In  its  behalf  it  may  rightly  be  urged  that  it  is 
always  wise  to  make  use  of  existing  agencies  before  cre- 
ating new  ones;  that  the  Federal  Council  is  itself  a body 
which  has  been  created  by  the  official  action  of  thirty 
odd  constituent  churches;  that  it  has  a long  record  of 
useful  and  constantly  expanding  service;  that  even  with 
those  churches  which  are  not  formally  members  it  has 
cooperated  effectively  through  its  commissions  on  social 
service,  evangelism,  and  the  like ; that  during  the  war  it 
was  the  one  agency  which  could  take  the  initiative  in 
calling  together  for  conference  all  the  religious  forces 
of  the  country,  except  the  Catholics  and  Jews ; that  in  the 
War-Time  Commission  of  the  Churches  and  the  Commit- 
tee on  the  War  and  the  Religious  Outlook  it  has  suc- 
ceeded in  creating  supplementary  agencies  through  which 
the  Christian  forces  of  the  country  worked  together  ami- 
cably and  effectively,  and  which  were  financed  through 
a joint  campaign  in  which  no  less  than  fourteen  churches 
participated;  that  it  is  today  recognized  by  the  churches 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


155 


abroad  as  the  official  organ  of  the  united  churches  of  this 
country,  and  is  acting  as  an  agent  not  only  in  relief  work 
in  Europe,  but  in  planning  with  similar  representative 
bodies  in  other  countries  for  calling  a council  of  the 
national  churches  of  the  different  countries  of  Europe, 
to  see  what  can  be  done  to  promote  a better  unification  of 
the  religious  forces  of  Christendom  and  to  repair  the 
ravage  to  religion  caused  by  the  war. 

As  at  present  organized,  however,  the  Federal  Council 
has  serious  weaknesses  which  must  be  remedied  before  it 
can  realize  the  ideal  which  the  churches  had  in  view  in 
creating  it.  Apart  from  the  fact  that  it  does  not  include 
a few  important  communions,  it  is  so  limited  in  scope 
that  its  service  is  chiefly  of  a voluntary  and  educational 
character.  Its  financial  support  from  the  cooperating 
churches  is  practically  negligible,  and  for  what  we  do 
not  pay  we  feel  little  responsibility.4  Its  connection  with 
the  central  administrative  agencies  like  the  Home  Mis- 
sions Council  and  the  Foreign  Missions  Conference,  while 
intimate  and  friendly,  is  unofficial.  Its  work  is  done 
mainly  through  commissions,  several  of  which  are  only 
collections  of  individuals,  mainly  privately  supported  and 
having  no  definite  standing  with  the  ecclesiastical  bodies 
from  whom  their  membership  is  recruited.  It  is  clear 
that  if  the  Federal  Council  is  to  become  the  agent  through 
which  the  common  life  of  the  churches  expresses  itself, 
effective  changes  must  take  place  in  its  equipment,  in 
its  support,  and  in  the  sphere  of  its  activities.  Above 
all,  there  must  be  a change  in  the  attitude  toward  it  on 
the  part  of  its  constituent  churches.  They  must  feel  it  to 
be,  as  they  do  not  yet,  their  chosen  and  official  representa- 
tive in  matters  of  common  interest,  and  must  accordingly 
give  to  it  the  trust  and  support  to  which  such  a position 
entitles  it. 

‘It  should  be  added,  however,  that  recently  some  of  the  denom- 
inations have  assumed  a much  larger  financial  support  of  the 
Council. 


156  CHRISTIAN  UNITY 

IV.  The  Movement  toward  Organic  Union 
i.  The  Philadelphia  Conference  on  Organic  Union 

The  fact  that  the  Federal  Council  according  to  its  pres- 
ent constitution  has  “no  authority  ...  to  limit  the  full 
autonomy  of  the  Christian  bodies  adhering  to  it”  has  led 
to  an  effort  to  secure  a federal  union  to  which  shall  be 
delegated  at  least  some  of  the  powers  now  retained  by  the 
constituent  churches.  Such  a step  was  sought  in  the 
Conference  on  Organic  Union  held  in  Philadelphia  in 
December,  1918,  at  the  invitation  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  U.  S.  A.  and  at- 
tended by  representatives  of  nineteen  communions.  At 
that  time  an  Ad  Interim  Committee  was  appointed  to 
prepare  a definite  plan  for  submission  to  the  churches. 
This  plan,  adopted  at  a second  conference  at  Philadel- 
phia, February  3-6,  1920,  provides  that  when  six  denom- 
inations shall  have  certified  their  consent  a council  may 
be  convened  to  function  for  what  shall  be  known  as  the 
“United  Churches  of  Christ  in  America.”  While  the  plan 
is  federal  in  nature  it  is  regarded  by  its  proponents,  and 
may  easily  be  developed  so  as  to  become,  a form  of  or- 
ganic union. 

The  proposed  organization  differs  from  the  existing 
Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America 
chiefly  in  that  it  is  definitely  committed  to  organic  union. 
“In  taking  this  step,”  the  plan  declares,  “we  look  for- 
ward with  confidence  to  that  complete  unity  toward  which 
we  believe  the  Spirit  of  God  is  leading  us.  Once  we 
shall  have  cooperated  whole-heartedly,  in  such  visible 
body,  in  the  holy  activities  of  the  work  of  the  Church, 
we  are  persuaded  that  our  differences  will  be  minimized 
and  our  union  become  more  vital  and  effectual.” 

The  constituent  churches  are  to  retain  full  autonomy 
in  all  matters  not  specifically  delegated  to  the  Council. 
Its  purpose  is  declared  in  the  following  terms  :5 


'The  full  text  of  the  “plan  of  union”  is  given  in  Appendix  III. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION  157 

“a.  The  Council  shall  harmonize  and  unify  the  work 
of  the  united  churches. 

“b.  It  shall  direct  such  consolidation  of  their  mission- 
ary activities  as  well  as  of  particular  churches  in  over- 
churched areas  as  is  consonant  with  the  law  of  the  land 
or  of  the  particular  denomination  affected.  Such  con- 
solidation may  be  progressively  achieved,  as  by  the  unit- 
ing of  the  boards  or  churches  of  any  two  or  more  con- 
stituent denominations,  or  may  be  accelerated,  delayed,  or 
dispensed  with,  as  the  interests  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
may  require. 

“c.  If  and  when  any  two  or  more  constituent  churches, 
by  their  supreme  governing  or  advisory  bodies,  submit  to 
the  Council  for  its  arbitrament  any  matter  of  mutual 
concern,  not  hereby  already  covered,  the  Council  shall 
consider  and  pass  upon  such  matter  so  submitted. 

“d.  The  Council  shall  undertake  inspirational  and  edu- 
cational leadership  of  such  sort  and  measure  as  may  be 
proper,  under  the  powers  delegated  to  it  by  the  constitu- 
ent churches  in  the  fields  of  Evangelism,  Social  Service, 
Religious  Education,  and  the  like.” 

It  is  only  in  the  two  functions  designated  by  (b)  and 
(c)  above  that  the  proposed  Council  goes  beyond  the 
constitutional  functions  of  the  existing  Federal  Council. 
The  Federal  Council  is  not  a final  court  of  appeal  for 
any  of  the  churches,  nor  has  it  any  authority  over  them. 
The  new  plan  definitely  contemplates  transferring  to  a 
central  council  certain  functions  which  the  separate  de- 
nominations are  now  exercising.  The  plan  of  union 
does  not,  however,  define  any  specific  functions  which 
must  be  thus  delegated.  “Such  consolidation”  (that  is, 
of  missionary  activities  or  of  local  churches),  the  plan 
says,  “may  be  accelerated,  delayed,  or  dispensed  with,  as 
the  interests  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  may  require.”  The 
distinctiveness  of  the  new  plan,  therefore,  is  in  the  goal 
which  it  anticipates  rather  than  in  any  concrete  respon- 
sibilities which  would  necessarily  be  assumed  by  the  cen- 
tral body  at  the  outset.  It  positively  commits  the 
churches  adopting  it  to  the  establishment  of  a new  judica- 


i5« 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


tory,  which,  within  the  limits  of  authority  delegated,  will 
have  the  same  kind  of  power  over  the  constituent 
churches  as  their  own  governing  bodies  now  have.  It 
proposes  particularly  to  grant  to  the  delegates  who  shall 
assemble  at  its  biennial  councils  the  responsibility  for 
working  out  a real  merger  of  the  various  missionary 
agencies. 

For  the  proposal  of  the  Philadelphia  Conference  this, 
first  of  all,  is  to  be  said — that  it  springs  from  an  earnest 
desire  to  deal  with  the  root  of  our  present  difficulty, 
namely,  the  divided  consciousness  of  the  different 
churches  themselves.  It  springs  from  a feeling  that  this 
state  of  things  should  cease.  What  it  proposes,  there- 
fore, as  its  goal  is  organic  union,  a union  such  that  each 
of  its  constituent  members  can  say:  I belong  to  the  one 
Church  of  Christ.  Corresponding  to  the  advantages  of 
the  plan  are  its  difficulties,  chief  of  them  being  the  diffi- 
culty of  persuading  the  larger  Christian  churches  to  make 
the  surrender  of  power  which  the  plan  contemplates. 
But  even  supposing  this  to  have  been  successfully  over- 
come, there  is  the  problem  of  the  relation  of  this  newly- 
constituted  council  to  the  existing  Federal  Council  of  the 
Churches.  Unless  all  the  bodies  represented  in  the  Fed- 
eral Council  accept  the  new  proposal,  there  will  still 
remain  for  the  churches  that  form  the  new  and  more 
compact  organization  the  problem  of  relating  themselves 
to  the  bodies  that  lie  without,  and  for  this  some  agency 
like  the  existing  Federal  Council  will  be  necessary.6 

In  any  case  the  importance  of  seeing  to  it  that  the  pro- 

6The  churches  represented  in  the  Philadelphia  Conference  were 
the  Armenian,  Baptist,  Christian,  Christian  Union  of  U.  S.,  Con- 
gregational, Disciples,  Evangelical  Synod  of  North  America, 
Friends  (two  branches),  Methodist  (Primitive),  Methodist  Epis- 
copal, Moravian,  Presbyterian  in  the  U.  S.  A.,  Protestant  Epis- 
copal, Reformed  Episcopal,  Reformed  in  the  United  States, 
United  Presbyterian,  Welsh  Presbyterian.  The  Baptist  body  has 
subsequently  voted  to  withdraw  from  the  Movement.  The  South- 
ern Presbyterian  and  the  Southern  Methodist,  the  Lutheran,  and 
the  Reformed  Church  in  America,  were  among  the  churches  not 
represented. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


159 


posed  Council  does  not  detract  from  the  strength  of  the 
Federal  Council  now  existing  is  very  great.  The  action 
of  the  United  Presbyterians  at  their  General  Assembly  in 
May,  1920,  is  significant : 

“It  is  evident  that  the  Council  of  Churches  of  Christ 
in  America  and  the  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of 
Christ  in  America  are  mutually  inclusive  in  intention, 
and,  though  now  working  together  rather  harmoniously, 
ultimately  will  conflict  with  each  other,  and  can  not  long 
exist  side  by  side ; indeed  it  is  the  declared  purpose  of 
the  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America  to  dis- 
place the  Federal  Council.  Each  of  these  Councils  is 
now  in  reality  only  a federal  union  of  churches,  and  each 
is  capable  constitutionally  of  development  into  a closer 
federation  and  ultimately,  when  ecclesiastical  sentiment 
in  America  permits,  into  organic  union.  The  Council 
of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America  proposes  at  the 
present  time  a little  further  advance  toward  real  organic 
union,  but  has  as  yet  not  accomplished  anything  practical 
in  the  field  of  Christian  activities;  the  Federal  Council 
has  made  less  progress  toward  organic  union,  but, 
through  its  many  organizations,  has  already  accomplished 
much  practically  for  Christian  activities  throughout  the 
United  States. 

“It  is  recommended : 

“That  the  United  Presbyterian  Church  discontinue  its 
relation  with  the  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in 
America  and  continue  its  relations  with  the  Federal 
Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America.” 

It  is  clear  that  care  will  need  to  be  exercised  to  prevent 
the  unfortunate  contrasting,  or  colliding,  of  the  ideas 
represented  in  this  movement  and  in  the  Federal  Council. 
If  this  movement  were  to  succeed  it  would  no  doubt 
absorb  the  Federal  Council.  The  greater  activity  would 
include  the  lesser.  It  would  be  most  unfortunate,  how- 
ever, if  the  efforts  to  secure  a future  larger  coordination 
should  diminish  the  zeal  of  the  churches  in  making  use 
of  the  coordination  which  they  already  have  or  imperil 
the  cooperation  already  achieved.  It  would  be  likewise 
unfortunate  for  a present  good  to  impede  a future  bet- 


i6o 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


ter.  The  wise  solution  would  be  for  all  who  believe  in 
the  larger  union  to  throw  themselves  heartily  into  the 
present  union  and  for  those  who  are  satisfied  with  the 
present  measure  of  union  to  recognize  the  entire  pro- 
priety of  the  actions  of  those  who  believe  that  they  are  led 
of  God’s  Spirit  to  go  beyond  the  existing  stage  and  to 
lead  the  churches  further  on. 

2.  The  World  Conference  on  Faith  and  Order 

The  eventual  reunion  of  all  Christendom — not  only 
Protestant  but  Catholic,  both  Roman  and  Eastern — is 
sought  by  the  proposed  World  Conference  on  Faith  and 
Order.  This  movement,  initiated  by  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  1910  as  an  outgrowth  of  the  proposal  for 
union  made  by  the  Anglican  Bishops  in  the  well-known 
Lambeth  Quadrilateral,7  aims  to  bring  together  official 
representatives  of  “all  Christian  communions  throughout 
the  world  which  confess  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  God 
and  Saviour.”  It  proceeds  on  the  principle  that  reunion 
is  to  be  secured  on  the  basis  of  agreement  concerning  es- 
sential doctrines.  The  purpose  of  the  proposed  confer- 
ence, therefore,  is  “to  facilitate  mutual  understanding  by 
a candid  and  loving  comparison  of  positive  beliefs  . . . 
striving  to  discern  what  is  true  and  vital  in  the  position 
of  each  communion  in  the  hope  of  attaining  to  a common 
mind,  in  which  everything  that  is  precious  shall  be  treas- 
ured and  given  its  just  and  proportionate  value.”8 

“No  joint  debate,  after  the  fashion  of  past  polemics, 
is  proposed.  No  one  is  to  be  asked  or  permitted  either 
to  submit  his  own  principles  to  attack  or  to  assail  the 
convictions  of  others.  He  will  be  expected  to  listen  to 
the  statements  of  his  brethren,  not  to  consider  how  they 
may  be  controverted,  but  to  see  if  there  be  not  at  least 
a grain  of  truth  in  them.  . . . But  even  if  there  be  no 

’See  pages  250-251  of  this  report. 

‘Quoted  from  an  official  statement  by  the  Joint  Commission  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  for  a World  Conference  on 
Faith  and  Order. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION  161 

grain  of  truth  in  a statement  neither  the  conference  nor 
any  member  of  it  is  expected,  nor  will  he  be  permitted, 
to  do  more  than  recognize  wherein  that  statement  differs 
from  others.”* 

The  conference,  in  a word,  is  to  be  an  effort,  on  the 
part  of  the  churches  represented,  really  to  understand 
and  appreciate  one  another,  in  the  hope  that  a better  un- 
derstanding of  divergent  views  of  faith  and  order  may 
result  in  a deepened  desire  for  reunion  and  subsequently 
in  official  action  on  the  part  of  the  various  communions 
themselves. 

This  proposal  differs  from  all  the  others  which  we  have 
considered  in  that  it  contemplates  a meeting  which  is  liter- 
ally ecumenical,  that  is,  a council  which  includes  repre- 
sentatives not  of  all  nations  only,  but  of  all  branches  of 
the  Christian  Church  within  each  nation.  It  includes  in 
its  scope  those  who  refuse  to  recognize  the  existence  of 
any  other  church  than  their  own,  as  well  as  those  who 
admit  the  existence  of  other  churches,  even  though  they 
regard  their  existence  as  unfortunate  and  temporary. 
Thus  the  Greek  and  the  Roman  Churches  have  been  in- 
vited to  participate  as  well  as  the  group  of  communions 
familiarly  known  as  Protestant,  and  until  recently  many 
of  those  interested  in  bringing  about  this  gathering  really 
believed  that  such  a meeting  was  possible. 

Experience  has  shown,  however,  that  this  is  not  the 
case.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church,  true  to  the  logic  of 
its  own  position,  has  declined  to  participate  in  the  coun- 
cil, intimating  to  those  who  conveyed  the  invitation  that 
there  was  one  way  to  achieve  the  end  desired  by  the  pro- 
moters, and  only  one — that  all  who  desire  membership 
in  the  one  true  Church  should  submit  to  the  authority  of 
him  whom  our  Lord  has  designated  to  be  its  head, 
namely,  the  Pope  of  Rome.  It  appears,  then,  that  if  the 

’“The  Conference  Spirit,”  by  a Layman,  p.  7.  Issued  by  the 
Joint  Commission  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  for  a 
World  Conference  on  Faith  and  Order. 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


162 

council  is  to  be  held  it  must  be  less  than  ecumenical,  con- 
fining itself  to  that  part  of  Christendom  which  believes 
that,  however  formidable  the  difficulties  which  separate 
Christians,  they  are  not  too  great  to  be  discussed.  More 
than  seventy  commissions  have  been  appointed  to  coop- 
erate in  preparing  for  the  conference.  A preliminary 
meeting  of  a few  representatives  of  a large  number  of 
the  commissions  was  held  in  Geneva,  Switzerland,  last 
summer  to  consider  further  procedure.10 

There  is  something  splendid  in  the  ideal  which  the 
conference  proposes,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
the  holding  of  such  a gathering,  even  under  the  limita- 
tions above  outlined,  will  be  a distinct  contribution  to  the 
cause  of  Christian  unity.  Contact  between  men  who  dif- 
fer always  tends  to  better  understanding,  and  when  that 
contact  is  inspired  by  a genuine  desire  to  get  together 
only  good  can  result.  Quite  apart,  moreover,  from  the 
direct  effect  upon  the  participants,  the  indirect  effects  of 
such  a conference  may  be  of  great  importance.  It  will 
be  an  impressive  demonstration  to  the  imagination  of  men 
that  the  unity  of  which  Christians  are  frequently  speak- 
ing is  an  actual  fact,  even  if  it  be  only  a fact  in  the  ideal 
world.  As  the  greatest  thing  about  the  League  of  Na- 
tions is  the  fact  that  men  have  cared  enough  about  inter- 
national unity  to  create  it  at  all,  so  the  greatest  fact  about 
the  conference  will  be  the  fact  that  it  has  seemed  worth 
while  to  bring  it  about. 

When  we  have  said  this,  however,  we  must  in  fairness 
go  on  to  say  that,  as  a method  of  bringing  about  actual 
union  among  Christians,  this  method  when  taken  by  itself 
has  serious  limitations.  For  one  thing,  the  size  of  the 
conference  and  the  number  of  participating  bodies  render 
it  exceedingly  cumbrous  and  unmanageable.  The  mere 
convening  of  it  is  an  affair  of  decades  and  the  difficul- 


l0For  an  account  of  this  meeting  see  Appendix  IV  of  this 
volume. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


163 


ties  of  space  and  time,  to  mention  no  others,  will  make 
it  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  secure  the  attendance  of 
all  those  persons  whose  presence  is  essential  to  a gath- 
ering of  Christians  which  is  to  be  really  ecumenical. 

Again,  the  diversity  of  interests  will  make  it  difficult 
to  give  the  discussions  of  the  conference  the  definiteness 
which  is  necessary  to  avoid  superficiality.  The  real 
work,  as  those  who  are  interested  well  realize,  must  be 
done  in  the  preliminary  discussions  which  prepare  the 
way  and  in  the  later  conferences  which  follow.  But  for 
a conference  which  proposes  no  action,  it  is  difficult  to 
create  the  sense  of  reality  which  will  command  the  pre- 
liminary attention  necessary  to  make  this  preparation 
efficient  and  concentrated.  The  more,  therefore,  one 
believes  in  the  Conference  on  Faith  and  Order  the  more 
he  should  interest  himself  in  those  more  definite,  even 
though  more  limited,  movements  which  bring  unity  down 
from  the  clouds  into  everyday  life  and  express  them- 
selves in  practical  proposals  for  action. 

This  has,  unfortunately,  not  always  been  the  attitude 
of  those  who  have  been  interested  in  this  mode  of  ap- 
proach to  the  problem  of  union.  They  have  been  so 
fearful  that  men  might  be  satisfied  with  some  lesser  goal 
than  an  all-embracing  catholicity  that  they  have  some- 
times discouraged  action  along  other  and  more  practicable 
lines,  and  themselves  abstained  from  participation  in  such 
movements.  Thus  the  Conference  on  Faith  and  Order,  in 
the  name  of  the  larger  union  still  to  be  attained,  has 
acted  in  certain  quarters  as  an  obstacle  to  the  coopera- 
tion that  is  now  possible.  It  is  a matter  of  encourage- 
ment that  this  earlier  attitude  has  now  been  generally 
abandoned,  and  it  is  recognized  that  the  more  men  experi- 
ment in  possible  unions,  even  on  a narrow  and  limited 
scale,  the  more  their  minds  will  be  prepared  for  the  larger 
union  of  the  future.  It  is  particularly  interesting  to  note 
that  the  1920  Lambeth  Conference  adopted  a resolution 
recommending  that  “councils  representing  all  Christian 


164 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


communions  should  be  formed  ...  as  centers  of  united 
effort.”11 

For  the  difficulty  of  the  attitude  of  indifference  to  the 
immediately  practicable  steps  goes  deeper  than  a mere 
postponement  of  action.  It  cuts  men  off  from  the  experi- 
ence in  the  light  of  which  alone  wise  action  is  possible. 
How  can  we  tell  whether  men  are  at  one  in  essentials? 
Least  of  all,  by  what  they  say.  For  words  mean  different 
things  to  different  men  and  different  things  to  the  same 
men  at  different  times.  If  there  is  to  be  understanding, 
the  words  must  be  interpreted  by  the  life  which  they  de- 
scribe and  inspire.  And  this  takes  time  and  contact  and 
sympathy.  The  most  fatal  of  all  the  obstacles  to  union 
is  the  refusal  to  meet  one’s  fellow-Christians  half  way. 
For  it  is  only  through  the  contacts  which  half  measures 
make  possible  that  we  can  tell  whether  the  whole  which 
is  desired  is  attainable,  and,  if  so,  in  what  way. 


“See  p.  366  of  this  volume. 


CHAPTER  V 


PRESENT  PROBLEMS  IN  THE  MOVEMENT 
TOWARD  UNION 

Our  survey  of  the  present  state  of  the  movement 
toward  union  has  revealed  to  us  a wide  variety  of  influ- 
ences now  at  work,  and  a bewildering  number  of  agen- 
cies through  which  the  impulse  in  this  direction  is  seek- 
ing, and  in  large  measure  is  finding,  expression.  Apart 
from  the  movements  toward  fuller  unity  within  the  dif- 
ferent denominations,  expressing  themselves  through  new 
forms  of  ecclesiastical  organization,  and  the  efforts — 
more  or  less  successful — to  reunite  in  a single  communion 
the  divided  members  of  the  same  or  of  closely  allied 
ecclesiastical  families,  we  have  found  at  least  five  dif- 
ferent types  of  movements  to  consider.  There  is,  first, 
the  movement  for  union  between  Christians  of  the  same 
locality,  which  in  smaller  communities  expresses  itself 
in  the  so-called  community  church  and  in  larger  centers 
in  the  federation  of  churches.  There  is,  in  the  second 
place,  the  group  of  movements  which,  while  closely  affili- 
ated with  the  Church  and  definitely  professing  to  serve 
its  interests,  are  yet  in  their  organization  and  control 
purely  voluntary  bodies,  responsible,  apart  from  the 
general  influence  of  public  sentiment,  only  to  their  own 
officers  and  members,  such  as  the  Young  Men’s  and 
Young  Women’s  Christian  Associations  and  a large  num- 
ber of  other  agencies  to  which  no  small  part  of  the  prog- 
ress and  enthusiasm  of  the  last  generation  of  Christian 
effort  is  due.  There  is,  in  the  third  place,  what  we  have 
called  the  movement  toward  administrative  union,  which 
has  its  impulse  in  the  desire  for  greater  economy  and  effi- 
ciency in  the  necessary  work  of  the  Church.  There  is, 

165 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


1 66 

finally,  the  group  of  movements  which  contemplate  offi- 
cial relations  of  union  between  the  different  denomina- 
tions as  such.  These  in  turn  fall  into  two  groups — those 
which  restrict  their  aims  to  cooperation,  recognizing  the 
autonomy  and  parity  of  the  cooperating  bodies,  and  def- 
initely excluding  from  their  programs  any  effort  to  realize 
what  is  ordinarily  called  organic  union ; and  those  which 
regard  the  existence  of  separate  denominations  as  itself 
a temporary  and  unfortunate  fact,  and  look  for  the  time 
when  all  Christians  shall  belong  to  one  Church,  which, 
in  its  organization,  doctrine,  and  worship,  shall  be  cath- 
olic enough  to  make  place  for  whatever  is  good  and  true 
in  the  doctrine,  polity,  and  worship  of  the  existing 
churches. 

This  fivefold  classification  is  of  course  only  approxi- 
mate. In  baffling  and  surprising  ways  the  lines  cross 
and  recross.  The  movement  for  local  federations  is  con- 
nected with  the  larger  national  movement  through  the 
Federal  Council’s  Commission  on  Councils  of  Churches 
(State  and  Local).  An  intermediate  step  between  official 
ecclesiastical  union  and  the  unofficial  bodies  of  the  type 
of  the  Young  Men’s  and  Young  Women’s  Christian  As- 
sociations is  furnished  by  the  Commissions  of  the  Fed- 
eral Council,  which,  created  by  a body  itself  officially 
responsible,  have  a considerable  range  of  activity  in  which 
they  function  more  freely.  The  Associations  them- 
selves are  brought  into  close  touch  with  the  administra- 
tive organs  of  the  churches  in  the  Continuation  Com- 
mittees and  similar  bodies  in  which  they  meet  for  counsel 
with  the  leaders  of  the  church  boards.  The  constantly 
increasing  responsibility  thrown  upon  the  Associations 
and  the  enlarged  sphere  in  which  they  are  operating 
lead  them  to  approximate  their  activities  to  those  of  the 
regular  missionary  organs  of  the  churches  and  cause 
overlapping  and  confusion  which  require  careful  study 
in  order  to  define  responsibility.  Moreover,  midway  be- 
tween the  local  units,  whether  ecclesiastical  or  voluntary, 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION  167 

and  the  national  organizations  to  which  they  are  ulti- 
mately responsible,  the  exigencies  of  practical  work  are 
creating  new  administrative  units,  such  as  the  county  and 
the  state,  which  present  problems  of  unity  of  their  own. 
Finally,  even  in  the  largest  sphere  of  all,  which  is  con- 
cerned with  the  relations  of  the  denominations  them- 
selves, the  line  between  federal  and  organic  unity  proves 
by  no  means  easy  to  draw.  What  exactly  is  meant  by 
organic  unity,  and  what  by  federal  unity  ? May  there  not 
be  a federal  unity  which  is  itself  organic,  even  as  the 
United  States  is  a unit  of  federated  states  ? Here  is  a 
whole  group  of  problems,  raising  important  questions  of 
theory  to  which  we  must  address  ourselves  if  we  are  to 
base  hope  of  progress  upon  a secure  foundation.  It 
is  clear,  therefore,  that  further  definition  is  in  order  as 
to  the  nature  of  the  union  which  we  seek  and  the  reasons 
for  which  we  desire  it. 

That  outer  union  presupposes  an  inner  Christian  unity 
goes  without  saying.  Unless  those  who  call  themselves 
by  the  name  of  Christ  are  really  one  in  the  Spirit,  no 
device  of  organization  will  avail.  Beneath  all  outward 
unions,  whether  official  or  unofficial,  there  must  be  one- 
ness of  conviction,  aspiration,  and  loyalty,  of  which  all 
external  activities  are  fruits.  By  their  success  in  foster- 
ing and  expressing  such  a spirit  all  plans  for  formal 
union  must  be  judged. 

But  we  are  thinking  here  of  something  more  than  this. 
As  the  spirit  of  the  nation  finds  expression  in  its  institu- 
tions, so  the  Christian  society  finds  social  expression  in 
the  Church.  It  is  the  existence  side  by  side  of  organiza- 
tions with  different  creeds,  polity,  and  form  of  worship, 
each  naming  the  name  of  Christ  and  claiming  to  speak 
with  the  authority  of  His  Church,  which  gives  rise  to 
our  practical  problems.  It  is  only,  therefore,  as  we  are 
clear  concerning  the  present  hindrances  and  helps  toward 
union  as  found  in  the  existing  churches,  and  concerning 
the  various  views  of  their  relation  to  one  another  and  to 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


1 68 

the  spiritual  society  which  expresses  itself  through  them, 
that  we  can  make  progress  in  achieving  the  practical 
union  that  we  need. 

I.  Factors  Which  Impede  the  Movement  toward 
Union 

And  first  of  the  factors  that  impede  the  movement. 
They  are  of  two  kinds — those  which  grow  out  of  differ- 
ences of  conviction  and  quality  of  spirit,  and  those  which 
are  due  to  practical  difficulties  arising  out  of  the  past 
history  of  the  churches  and  the  interests  which  their  sep- 
arate existence  has  created.  We  shall  begin  with  the 
latter,  not  because  they  are  inherently  more  important, 
but  because  they  are  so  obvious  and  immediate. 

i.  Factors  Growing  Out  of  the  Past  History  of  the 
Existing  Churches 

In  the  first  place,  then,  we  must  recognize  the  fact 
that  the  existing  churches  are  here  and  have  to  be  reck- 
oned with.  We  sometimes  speak  of  our  denominational 
divisions  as  negligible  factors  perpetuating  the  memory 
of  some  ancient  controversy  which  has  long  lost  its 
meaning  for  intelligent  modern  men,  but  even  if  this 
fact  were  true,  and  it  is  far  from  being  true,  it  is  still 
undeniable  that  the  churches  today  are  very  much  alive 
and,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  growing  more  active  and  self- 
conscious  every  day.  However  they  came  into  being  and 
whether  or  no  they  ought  to  have  broken  away  from  the 
parent  stock  to  which  they  owe  their  original  life,  the 
churches  today  exist  as  powerful,  intelligent,  self-govern- 
ing, and  self-supporting  units — each  conscious  of  a his- 
tory and  traditions  of  its  own,  each  committed  to  definite 
responsibilities  in  which  it  takes  pride  and  for  which  it 
demands  sacrifice,  each  commanding  the  service  of  a 
large  number  of  persons  whose  livelihood  and  interests 
in  life  are  wrapped  up  with  its  service  and  success.  No 
one  who  has  attended  the  meetings  of  a Methodist  Gen- 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


169 


eral  Conference  or  a Presbyterian  General  Assembly  or 
other  denominational  convention  and  lived  through  the 
days  in  which  the  work  of  that  church  in  home  and  for- 
eign missions  was  presented,  but  must  have  realized  that 
he  was  dealing  with  a very  real  and  potent  factor  in  the 
religious  life  of  America. 

This  independent  life  of  the  denomination  includes  a 
number  of  different  factors,  each  of  which  must  be  taken 
into  account  if  we  are  rightly  to  measure  its  significance. 
There  is,  first  of  all,  what  we  may  call  the  institution 
itself,  with  its  whole  complex  of  associations,  habits, 
loyalties,  and  interests,  which  have  crystallized  into  defi- 
nite forms  of  procedure  and  action,  having  the  sanction 
of  law.  A church,  we  repeat,  is  an  independent  and  self- 
governing  body,  having  its  own  constitution  and  methods 
of  procedure,  and  any  structural  change  which  affects  the 
church  as  a whole  is  possible  only  through  the  method  of 
constitutional  action,  which  takes  time  and  involves  delay. 

But  quite  apart  from  the  limitations  imposed  by  the 
constitution  and  laws  of  the  church  itself,  there  are 
obstacles  imposed  by  the  relation  of  the  Church  to  the 
State.  A church  is  not  only  an  independent,  self-govern- 
ing society  which  within  proper  limits  may  act  as  it 
pleases : it  is  a corporation,  recognized  by  the  state  in 
which  it  exists  and  held  to  modes  of  action  which  incor- 
poration makes  necessary.  Each  denomination  as  a 
whole,  as  well  as  its  several  congregations  and  societies, 
is  a property-holder,  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  state  un- 
der which  it  holds  its  property,  and  the  aggregate  of 
these  holdings  runs  into  the  millions  and  even  hundreds 
of  millions  of  dollars.  Any  change  in  the  constitution  and 
control  of  any  one  of  the  existing  churches  affects  its 
title  to  its  property  and  creates  difficulties,  which  those 
only  can  measure  whose  studies  or  whose  experience 
have  led  them  into  the  “no  man’s  land”  of  the  relation 
of  Church  and  State.  In  matters  of  spiritual  enthusiasm 
it  is  easy  to  ignore  minorities  but  in  property  questions 


170 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


these  are  anything  but  a negligible  factor,  as  the  history 
of  church  legislation  abundantly  attests.  Witness  the 
experience  of  the  United  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  or 
the  more  recent  experience  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  U.  S.  A.  in  its  union  with  the  Cumberland  Church. 
In  each  case  the  union  consummated  was  the  parent  of 
a new  division  and  in  each  case  what  would  otherwise 
have  been  an  unimportant  secession  was  rendered  for- 
midable by  the  magnitude  of  the  property  interests 
involved. 

But  quite  apart  from  the  question  of  law  or  of  prop- 
erty, there  are  personal  interests  to  be  considered,  which 
require  time  and  patience.  An  institution  means  office 
holders  and,  in  the  case  of  the  existing  churches,  these 
are  numerous,  able,  and  devoted  to  the  church  to  which 
they  belong.  Any  comprehensive  plan  for  organic  union 
will  mean  for  many  of  these  not  only  change  of  habits  and 
mode  of  life  but,  in  many  cases,  actual  loss  of  position 
or  at  least  the  exchange  of  a more  for  a less  influential 
place.  One  need  not  attribute  to  the  ministry  of  our 
churches  base  or  selfish  motives,  but  they  would  be  more 
or  less  than  human  if  they  did  not  view  such  a change 
with  grave  concern  and  wish  to  be  assured  that  the  new 
alignment  which  is  to  replace  the  old  is  really  a step  for- 
ward and  not  simply  the  substitution  of  one  new  form 
of  organization  for  another,  with  its  resulting  change  of 
personnel. 

But  above  and  beyond  all  these  definite  and  measurable 
factors  there  are  certain  imponderables  which  move  in 
the  region  of  emotion  and  sentiment.  One  does  not  live 
and  worship  in  a church  with  the  sincerity  that  goes  with 
genuine  piety  without  acquiring  certain  feelings  of  loyalty 
and  affection,  which  it  is  not  easy  to  define  but  which  yet 
weigh  powerfully  in  leading  one  to  resist  change.  As  the 
home  in  which  one  was  born  means  something  which  can- 
not be  replaced  by  any  later  habitation,  however  com- 
modious and  beautiful,  so  the  church  in  which  one  first 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


171 

heard  the  Gospel  preached  and  learned  to  pray  and  work 
for  the  coming  of  Christ’s  Kingdom  has  a meaning  and 
a value  not  easily  to  be  transferred  to  any  other  institu- 
tion. These  unseen  ties  of  loyalty  and  affection  we  must 
take  into  account  when  we  measure  the  obstacles  to  union 
which  grow  out  of  the  existence  of  the  present  churches 
as  separate  institutions. 

2.  Factors  Growing  Out  of  Differences  of  Religious 
Conviction 

But  these  difficulties,  serious  as  they  are,  lie  on  the 
surface.  Far  more  formidable  are  those  which  grow  out 
of  differences  of  inner  conviction  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
Church  itself  and  its  function  in  society. 

The  theological  disputes  between  Christians  have  long 
been  a subject  of  ridicule  on  the  part  of  opponents  of 
Christianity.  We  recall  the  famous  remark  by  Gibbon 
about  the  debate  over  the  person  of  Christ  as  having 
divided  Christendom  on  the  question  of  a single  Greek 
iota.  But,  reprehensible  or  not,  these  differences  are  a 
factor  which  must  be  taken  into  account,  for  Christianity 
is  not,  in  the  belief  of  its  adherents,  a mere  matter  of 
private  opinion  and  interpretation,  but  a divine  revelation, 
and  the  Church  receives  its  unique  mission  in  the  world 
from  the  fact  that  it  is  the  bearer  of  a Gospel  on  which 
world-wide  issues  depend.  Where  sympathy  might  incline 
one  to  yield  one’s  personal  preferences,  loyalty  may  re- 
quire uncompromising  firmness  in  witnessing  to  the  truth. 

The  importance  of  such  fidelity  is  reenforced  by  the 
fact  that  the  message  of  which  the  Church  is  the  bearer 
does  not  consist  of  abstract  propositions  about  truth  in 
general,  although  it  has  sometimes  been  represented  as  if 
this  were  so,  but  of  a Gospel  of  redemption  from  sin  and 
of  personal  salvation  for  the  individual  and  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  a new  world  order, 
made  possible  through  divine  initiative  and  requiring  on 
the  part  of  those  who  are  to  be  sharers  in  its  benefits  loyal 


172 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


acceptance  of  the  conditions  laid  down.  This  common 
acceptance  of  divine  revelation  as  to  the  momentous  issues 
involved  in  the  Church’s  ministry  gives  to  the  divisions 
between  Christians  a significance  which  they  would  not 
otherwise  have.  Other  than  human  factors  are  concerned 
and  other  than  human  loyalties  involved.  In  proportion 
to  the  greatness  of  the  benefits  is  the  greatness  of  the  risk. 
Hence  the  rigid  and  unyielding  character  which  has 
caused  so  much  of  the  theological  controversy  of  the  past 
and  which  has  left  its  traces  in  the  divisions  of  the 
present. 

It  is  not  the  place  here  to  tell  the  story  of  these  con- 
troversies or  to  dwell  on  the  differences  of  conviction 
which  now  exist  among  Christians.  We  are  concerned 
only  with  their  effects  upon  the  present  divisions  of  the 
Church  and  their  bearing  upon  the  possible  reunion  of 
Christendom. 

This,  then,  is  to  be  noted  first  of  all,  that  they  trans- 
form existing  differences  of  polity  and  worship  into  dif- 
ferences of  religious  conviction,  which  can  be  resolved 
only  in  the  forum  of  theological  discussion.  Were  the 
difference  between  Episcopalians  and  Presbyterians  and 
Baptists  simply  a difference  as  to  the  form  of  organiza- 
tion, it  might  not  be  difficult  to  hit  upon  a mode  of  ad- 
justment. Each  form  of  government  has  its  advan- 
tages, which  can  be  retained  without  sacrifice  of  the 
others,  and  the  ideal  form  of  church  government  will 
doubtless  be  found  to  include  elements  from  all  three ; 
but  to  those  who  hold  these  respective  polities,  or  at  least 
to  a group  within  the  churches  which  hold  them,  they 
are  more  than  this.  To  them  they  are  a part  of  that  di- 
vine deposit  of  revelation  which  the  Church  is  charged 
to  transmit  unimpaired  to  succeeding  generations.  To 
abandon  or  modify  this  divine  deposit  would  be  no  light 
or  forgivable  matter.  It  would  mean  direct  disobedience 
to  our  Lord  Himself. 

This  attitude  meets  us  in  the  view  of  the  Church  itself. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


173 


That  the  Church  as  an  institution  has  divine  significance 
we  find  the  great  majority  of  all  Christians  to  agree.  But 
on  this  common  basis  there  are  far-reaching  differences. 
On  the  one  hand  are  Christians  who  believe  that  the  one 
invisible  Church  may  express  itself  in  many  external 
organizations.  To  many  Christians,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  very  idea  of  the  existence  of  more  than  one  organ- 
ized Church  is  a contradiction  in  terms.  The  Roman 
Catholic  finds  this  one  all-embracing  body  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church ; the  High  Anglican,  in  the  group  of 
churches,  now  unhappily  but  it  is  to  be  hoped  only  tem- 
porarily divided,  which  agree  in  accepting  the  historic 
episcopate,  the  Catholic  creeds,  and  the  traditions  of  the 
undivided  Church  of  the  first  six  centuries;  the  extreme 
Southern  Baptist,  in  the  group  that  sees  in  the  local  con- 
gregation the  final  ecclesiastical  authority.  But  all  three 
hold  that  the  only  possibility  of  union  is  that  those  who 
are  outside  the  bodies  thus  defined  should  surrender  their 
present  false  position  and  come  into  the  one  true  Church. 
It  is  true  that  the  existence  outside  the  boundaries  thus 
defined  of  many  persons  who  show  in  their  character  the 
fruits  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  constitutes  a problem  which 
is  acutely  felt  by  the  more  sensitive  consciences  and  which 
has  been  dealt  with  by  the  theologians  of  the  respective 
bodies  in  various  ways.  Into  this  by-path  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal history  we  do  not  here  need  to  enter,  for  those  who 
still  insist  that  the  only  way  to  union  is  the  complete 
submission  of  all  who  are  outside  what  seems  to  them 
the  one  true  Church,  will  not  be  open  to  the  considera- 
tions urged  in  this  report. 

The  insistence  on  an  unchanging  point  of  view  meets 
us  also  in  the  two  extreme  conceptions  of  the  ministry — 
in  the  high  churchman’s  view  of  the  episcopate  and 
equally  in  the  stricter  Baptist’s  view  of  the  local  congre- 
gation. To  the  former  the  episcopate  is.  of  the  essence 
of  the  Church  in  the  sense  that  without  a minister  epis- 
copally  ordained  there  can  be  no  valid  administration 


174 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


of  the  sacrament,  which  is  itself  the  mark  of  the  exis- 
tence of  the  true  Church.  For  the  latter  the  local  con- 
gregation is  so  truly  the  fons  et  origo  of  ecclesiastical 
authority,  that  where  it  is  absent,  there  can  be  no  Church, 
were  every  bishop  in  the  episcopate  present.  So  much  is 
this  the  case  that  many  Southern  Baptists  did  not  even 
desire  their  chaplains  to  purchase  communion  services 
lest  they  should  be  tempted  in  the  presence  of  dying  men 
to  celebrate  the  Lord’s  Supper  apart  from  the  local  con- 
gregation, an  act  that  would  render  the  sacrament  invalid. 

What  is  true  of  the  ministry  of  the  Church  is  equally 
true  of  its  creed  and  of  its  sacraments.  There  are 
branches  of  the  Church  to  which  the  repetition  of  the 
Trinitarian  formula  in  the  creed  is  so  of  the  essence  of 
Christian  worship  that  they  could  conscientiously  hold 
no  communion  with  Christians  who  omitted  it,  no  matter 
how  much  in  their  lives  they  might  hold  fellowship  with 
God  the  Father,  follow  Christ  in  humble  discipleship, 
and  illustrate  in  their  character  the  graces  of  the  Spirit. 
There  are  Christians  on  the  other  hand — at  least  those 
who  call  themselves  such — who  would  regard  the  repeti- 
tion of  the  Trinitarian  creed  as  a departure  from  prim- 
itive Christianity  so  radical  as  to  involve  betrayal  of  a 
trust,  in  which  they  could  not  acquiesce  without  disloyalty 
to  Christ.  So  of  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the 
Lord’s  Supper.  As  to  their  nature  and  the  modes  of  ad- 
ministering them,  there  are  differences  of  conviction  so 
fundamental  that  up  to  the  present  time  they  make  inter- 
communion impossible.  Where  a certain  method  of  bap- 
tism, like  immersion,  or  a certain  mode  of  observing  the 
Supper,  is  made  the  articulus  stantis  aut  cadentis  ecclcsiac, 
those  who  hold  other  views  are  by  the  very  fact  excluded 
from  membership  in  the  visible  Church  and  the  prospect 
of  Christian  unity  is  correspondingly  diminished. 

What  makes  these  differences  so  serious  is  that  they 
tend  to  perpetuate  themselves  by  making  impossible  the 
one  method  by  which  they  might  be  removed.  That 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


175 


method  is  contact.  Creed,  sacraments,  and  ministry  exist 
not  for  themselves,  but  as  channels  through  which  the 
grace  of  God  is  conveyed  to  needy  men  and  women ; but 
if  we  differ  in  our  view  of  the  nature  of  these  channels 
and  the  mode  by  which  their  ministry  is  effective,  how  are 
we  to  resolve  our  differences?  Clearly,  only  in  one  way. 
We  must  put  the  matter  to  the  test  of  experience.  We 
must  try  the  different  ways  in  which  our  fellow^Christians 
claim  that  grace  has  come  to  them,  to  see  whether  we 
ourselves  share  something  of  their  experience.  But  this 
the  existing  attitude  of  the  high  churchman  on  either  side 
makes  impossible.  There  is  a conflict  as  to  facts  which 
can  be  resolved  only  by  experience,  but  each  party  is  so 
confident  that  he  already  possesses  the  whole  truth  that 
he  is  unwilling  to  make  the  test  in  the  only  way  in  which 
that  test  is  possible. 


I 


3.  Factors  Due  to  Permanent  Differences  in  the  Type 
of  Religious  Experience 

When  we  ask  for  the  source  of  the  differences  of  con- 
viction which  we  have  analyzed  in  the  preceding  section, 
the  answer  is  in  part  historical.  Long  association  with 
the  different  forms  of  belief  and  worship  practiced  in 
each  branch  of  the  Church  has  given  each  a sacredness 
and  authority  that  make  it  seem  of  the  very  essence  of 
the  Gospel.  And  when  this  is  reenforced  by  the  con- 
ception of  divine  revelation  as  the  impartation  of  un- 
changing truth,  which  is  characteristic  of  all  the  churches, 
the  thought  of  change  is  rendered  correspondingly  diffi- 
cult. But,  quite  apart  from  this,  there  are  subjective 
reasons  in  the  nature  of  the  religious  experience  itself. 
There  are  different  types  of  religious  life  which  recur 
from  age  to  age — in  part  the  results,  in  part  the  cause  of 
the  differences  we  have  described.  These  permanent 
differences  in  the  type  of  religious  experience  make  the 
mode  of  approach  to  God  which  one  man  finds  natural 
and  congenial,  impossible  or  repellent  to  another. 


176 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


That  mysterious  factor  which  we  call  temperament, 
of  which  we  know  so  little  although  we  experience  its 
effects  so  intimately,  has  been  a great  factor  in  the  history 
of  religion.  The  mystic,  the  authoritarian,  the  sacramen- 
tarian,  the  radical  individualist,  these — to  mention  only 
a few  of  the  more  outstanding  types — must  be  reckoned 
with  in  any  comprehensive  program  for  Christian  unity. 

Especially  important  for  our  present  purpose  are  the 
two  contrasted  types  which  we  have  called  the  sacramen- 
tarian  and  the  radical  individualist.  Each  emphasizes 
an  element  in  the  Christian  experience  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  other.  The  sacramentarian  magnifies  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  institution  for  human  life.  To  him  the 
organized  Church  is  the  very  center  and  core  of  Chris- 
tianity. In  the  rites  handed  down  to  us  from  the  remote 
past,  performed  by  the  priest  who  has  received  his  com- 
mission from  Christ  Himself,  and  partaken  of  in  rever- 
ence and  faith,  he  is  conscious  of  receiving  a mystical 
grace  by  which  his  whole  nature  is  renewed.  Tyrrell 
has  expressed  the  type  of  experience  for  which  the  sac- 
ramentarian stands,  when  he  describes  the  infinite  dis- 
tance between  the  altar  as  the  Catholic  churchman  con- 
ceives it  and  the  Lord’s  table  conceived  as  a memorial 
symbol  or  the  center  of  a common  meal.  How  can  a man 
with  such  an  experience  as  this  find  himself  at  home  in 
a Baptist  revival  service  or  a Presbyterian  prayer 
meeting  ? 

To  the  individualist,  on  the  other  hand,  the  central 
fact  of  the  religious  life  is  the  presence  of  God’s  Spirit 
in  the  soul  of  the  believer.  This  is,  in  the  case  of  each 
man  or  woman  who  ever  lived,  an  individual  and  unre- 
peatable experience.  God,  who  reveals  Himself  through 
Christ  and  the  Gospel,  is  received  by  faith  by  the  believer, 
works  a transformation  through  regeneration  which  ap- 
pears in  a sanctified  life,  and  leaves  a sense  of  freedom 
and  joy  which  makes  him  who  possesses  it  independent 
of  all  that  is  external  or  historic.  The  Church  consists 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


177 


of  all  who  share  in  this  experience.  Its  continuity  is  the 
body  of  redeemed  lives,  and  the  sacraments  are  rather 
signs  of  a life  that  has  been  directly  created  by  God  than 
agents  in  its  creation. 

There  seems  little  doubt  that  in  each  of  these  cases 
we  are  dealing  with  a permanent  human  type.  There  is 
equally  little  doubt  that  as  we  meet  them  at  present  they 
are  serious  obstacles  to  union,  for  it  is  characteristic  of 
each  of  these  types  of  the  religious  life  that  it  takes  its 
own  experience  as  authoritative  and  finds  it  difficult  to 
detect  in  the  other  what  it  regards  as  the  marks  of  essen- 
tial Christianity. 

There  is,  however,  a quality  in  the  individualistic  type 
which  differentiates  it  from  the  other  and  demands 
special  consideration.  The  sacramentarian  may  conceive 
church  union  narrowly,  but  it  is  at  least  a part  of  his  ideal 
for  Christianity.  The  individualist,  however,  has  suffered 
so  much  from  ecclesiastical  tyranny  in  the  past  that  he 
questions  whether  church  union,  in  the  sense  in  which 
it  is  usually  discussed,  is  desirable  at  all.  He  recalls  the 
experience  of  Europe  under  the  undivided  Roman 
Church.  He  points  to  those  countries  where  today  Rome 
has  full  sway.  He  contrasts  the  state  of  religion  in  the 
United  States,  with  its  many  free  churches,  or  in  Eng- 
land, where  nonconformists  divide  the  field  with  the 
establishment,  with  that  of  Germany  under  a state  church. 
Where  there  is  but  one  church  he  finds  stagnation,  uni- 
formity, deadness;  where  there  are  many,  life,  movement, 
progress.  He  is  inclined  to  believe  that  there  is  a reason 
for  this,  which  we  shall  ignore  at  our  peril.  He  sees  in 
the  desire  for  a single  all-embracing  Church  a sign  of  that 
aristocratic  and  imperialistic  conception  in  religion  which 
the  modern  democratic  spirit  is  trying  to  banish  from  the 
State.  Above  all,  he  fears  that  too  great  insistence  upon 
outward  union  may  divert  attention  from  those  inward 
unities  of  spirit  which  are  all-important,  and  in  seeking 
to  create  a single  all-embracing  organization  may  force 


178 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


those  who  believe  in  liberty  and  variety  to  withdraw  from 
even  that  measure  of  cooperation  which  we  have  so  far 
attained. 

4.  Factors  Due  to  Lack  of  Clear  Perception  of  the 
Question  at  Issue 

Apart  from  these  major  and  permanent  differences 
growing  out  of  history,  conviction,  and  temperament, 
there  are  certain  minor  obstacles  which  are  not  the  less 
formidable  because  unrealized  and  unconfessed.  There 
is  the  natural  inertia  which  opposes  change.  There  is  lack 
of  interest,  due  to  lack  of  contact.  Above  all,  there  is  the 
very  real  difficulty  which  grows  out  of  confusion  of 
thought  as  to  the  real  issues  involved  and  the  significance 
of  the  steps  that  are  proposed.  There  are  so  many  dif- 
ferent forms  of  the  movement  for  union  that  it  is  not 
strange  that  this  confusion  should  arise  and  that  men 
whose  support  would  be  secured  if  the  real  issue  were 
made  clear  are  alienated  because  they  suppose  other  mat- 
ters to  be  involved  to  which  they  are  not  yet  ready  to 
commit  themselves.  Most  important,  then,  if  progress 
is  to  be  made,  is  a clear  definition  of  the  thing  to  be 
reached  and  the  method  to  be  followed  in  reaching  it. 
Above  all,  we  must  distinguish  between  the  nearer  and 
the  more  distant  goal  and  see  to  it  that  we  do  not  sacri- 
fice the  joint  action  that  is  immediately  possible  because 
there  are  later  and  larger  matters  on  which  we  may 
disagree. 

II.  Factors  Which  Further  the  Movement  toward 
Union 

We  have  considered  the  obstacles  which  block  the  way 
to  union.  It  remains  to  consider  the  influences  that  are 
working  in  its  favor.  These  we  can  treat  more  briefly, 
since  our  previous  discussion  has  already  made  us  famil- 
iar with  them.  It  is  necessary  only  to  classify  them  and 
to  estimate  their  significance. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


179 


1.  Factors  Growing  Out  of  the  Nature  of  the  Christian 
Religion  Itself 

First  in  importance  are  those  which  grow  out  of  the 
nature  of  the  Christian  religion  itself.  From  the  first, 
Christianity  has  proclaimed  itself  a world  religion.  The 
redemption  it  brings  is  freely  offered  to  all  mankind. 
The  Kingdom  into  which  it  invites  men  is  an  all-embrac- 
ing society  in  which  existing  differences  of  race,  nation- 
ality, class,  and  education  are  transcended.  In  the  Cross 
God  has  broken  down  once  and  for  all  the  middle  wall 
of  partition  between  man  and  man  and  made  even  widely 
separated  and  rival  groups  one  new  man  in  Christ  Jesus. 
Clearly,  then,  the  Church  which  proclaims  such  a Gospel 
and  such  a salvation  must  be  one,  and  the  unity  of  spirit 
in  which  all  Christians  alike  believe  must  find  some  visible 
expression  if  it  is  to  convince  the  world  of  its  existence. 
The  high-priestly  prayer  of  Christ,  “that  they  all  may 
be  one  . . . that  the  world  may  believe,”  only  expresses  in 
words  that  which  is  the  very  heart  of  the  situation.  The 
more  one  contemplates  the  nature  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion, the  more  one  enters  , into  the  greatness  of  the  task 
which  Christ  has  laid  upon  His  Church,  the  more  irra- 
tional and  unintelligible  must  become  the  present  condi- 
tion of  our  divided  Christendom. 

This  unity,  implicit  in  the  Christian  religion,  becomes 
apparent  the  moment  we  consider  more  in  detail  the 
nature  of  the  Christian  Gospel.  It  appears  in  the  Chris- 
tian conception  of  God  who,  as  the  universal  Father, 
desires  the  salvation  of  all  men  and  their  union  one  with 
another  in  the  family  of  God.  There  are  many  points 
in  which  Christians  differ  in  their  thought  of  God,  but 
these  sink  into  insignificance  in  comparison  with  that  in 
which  they  are  agreed.  In  the  midst  of  a world  in  which 
many  have  made  selfishness  the  law  of  their  life,  sur- 
rounded by  men  engrossed  in  narrow  and  petty  aims  and 
indifferent  to  ideal  interests,  all  Christians  believe  in  the 


i8o 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Father  God,  righteous,  wise,  and  loving,  who,  in  spite  of 
the  infinite  distance  by  which  He  is  removed  from  man 
in  character  and  in  power,  is  yet  in  a true  sense  akin  to 
him,  and  who  in  Jesus  Christ  has  given  man  a revelation 
of  what  he  should  be  and  what  he  may  become. 

The  unity  of  the  Christian  religion  appears  further  in 
the  Christian  attitude  to  Jesus  Christ  whom  all  Christians, 
in  spite  of  their  differences  from  one  another,  unite  in 
confessing  as  their  common  Lord,  their  Saviour,  and 
their  Guide.  Face  to  face  with  the  mysteries  of  life,  en- 
compassed on  every  side  with  unanswered  questions, 
Christians  of  every  name  see  in  Christ  the  way, 
the  truth,  and  the  life,  God’s  solution  of  the  mystery  of 
life  and  His  answer  to  its  unanswered  questions.  In 
Him  they  see  at  once  the  revelation  of  God  and  of 
man,  the  window  through  which  they  look  into  the  face 
of  God,  their  Father,  and  the  mirror  in  which  they  see 
reflected  that  which  they  shall  become.  And  not  only 
this : they  see  in  Him  their  Captain  in  the  daily  struggle 
against  evil,  the  one  who  upon  the  cross  has  taken  upon 
Himself  the  burden  of  their  sin,  and  not  theirs  only,  but 
that  of  the  whole  world,  and  who  is  the  Lord  of  that 
Kingdom  which  is  to  be  established  upon  the  earth,  the 
Kingdom  of  righteousness  and  peace  and  joy,  in  which 
he  is  to  be  greatest  who  is  minister,  and  he  is  to  be  chief 
who  is  servant  of  all. 

The  unity  of  the  Christian  faith  appears  further  in 
the  Christian  experience  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  a world 
which  is  full  of  failure,  weary  and  discouraged  because 
its  hopes  have  been  baffled  and  its  plans  have  gone  astray, 
all  Christians  believe  in  a present  power  able  to  transform 
and  to  renew.  Their  faces  are  turned  forward,  and  not 
back,  to  that  new  world  which  is  to  be  formed  when  God 
shall  have  His  way  in  men’s  hearts  and  the  creation  which 
groans  and  travails  together  in  pain  until  now  shall  be 
delivered  from  its  misery  through  the  revelation  of  the 
sons  of  God. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


181 


It  appears  finally  in  the  common  acceptance  by  Chris- 
tians of  the  great  commission.  Themselves  children  of 
God,  redeemed  by  Jesus  Christ  and  renewed  by  His 
Spirit,  they  recognize  His  call  to  share  that  which  they 
have  received  with  others.  The  custodians  of  a great 
trust,  which  they  interpret,  to  be  sure,  in  different  ways, 
they  are  at  one  in  recognizing  that  what  has  been  given 
to  them  has  been  given  not  for  themselves  alone,  but  for 
all  mankind.  From  the  first,  Christianity  has  been  a mis- 
sionary religion  and  the  missionary  ideal  is  by  its  very 
nature  an  ideal  of  unity.  As  there  is  only  one  Christ  and 
one  Spirit  and  one  God  and  Father  of  all,  as  there  is  only 
one  family  into  which  all  the  nations  of  the  world  are 
called,  so  in  the  nature  of  the  case  there  can  be  only  one 
Church  through  which  the  unity  of  this  new  social  order 
must  be  proclaimed,  expressed,  and  realized. 

This  consciousness  of  the  unity  in  the  Christian  reli- 
gion has  become  increasingly  prevalent  among  Christians. 
The  story  which  in  this  report  we  have  passed  in  review 
is  the  story  of  deep-seated  spiritual  convictions  finding 
their  way  to  expression  in  spite  of  obstacles  apparently 
insuperable.  Men  may  differ  in  their  definition  of  this 
goal.  They  may  differ  in  their  view  of  the  way  this  goal 
is  to  be  reached,  but  they  agree  that  Christianity  is  a 
world  religion,  rightfully  claiming  the  allegiance  of  all 
men  and  that  the  time  is  coming  when  this  common  alle- 
giance will  find  public  and  outward  expression. 

This  deepened  consciousness  finds  expression  in  the 
growing  disposition  to  make  the  unity  of  Christ’s  Church 
the  object  of  Christian  prayer.  Not  simply  in  formal 
petitions  ecclesiastically  approved,  not  simply  as  part  of 
the  stated  prayer  offered  up  from  Sunday  to  Sunday 
in  divine  worship,  but  in  prayer  circles  and  other  infor- 
mal groups,  Christians  are  meeting  to  pray  for  union. 
Such  prayer  is  not  only  a sign  of  the  oneness  of  spirit 
which  already  exists ; it  is  a powerful  means  of  increas- 
ing it  by  creating  the  spirit  and  temper  of  mind  in  which 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


182 

men  hitherto  strangers  can  come  together.  The  God  in 
whom  Christians  believe  is  a God  who  answers  prayer, 
and  Christ  who  taught  men  how  to  pray  aright  made  the 
unity  of  all  Christians  the  subject  of  His  own  high- 
priestly  prayer. 

2.  Factors  Growing  Out  of  the  World's  Need  of  a 
United  Church 

This  impulse  inherent  in  the  nature  of  the  Christian 
religion  itself  is  powerfully  reenforced  by  the  revelation 
of  the  greatness  of  the  world’s  need.  There  was  a time 
when  men's  conception  of  Christianity  could  be  parochial 
because  their  vision  of  the  world  was  bounded  by  the 
community  in  which  they  lived ; but  this  time  has  long 
passed.  Steam  and  electricity — those  twin  wizards  of 
the  modern  world — have  broken  down  the  barriers  that 
used  to  separate  the  peoples  and  have  made  the  whole 
world  a unity.  Trade  and  commerce — in  all  ages  intro- 
ducers of  people  to  one  another — have  made  distant 
peoples  dependent  upon  one  another,  not  simply  for  lux- 
uries and  conveniences  but  for  the  very  food  they  eat. 
But  with  the  contact  they  have  brought  new  dangers. 
Disease  knows  no  barrier  of  race  and  ideas  fly  faster 
even  than  germs.  Out  of  this  closer  contact  rivalries 
and  suspicions  are  born,  the  strong  exploit  the  weak,  and 
the  ignorant  become  the  prey  of  the  well-informed.  In 
our  life  as  citizens  of  the  world  we  are  proving  the  truth 
of  the  apostle’s  saying  that  none  of  us  liveth  to  himself 
alone.  We  are  members  one  of  another,  and  if  one  mem- 
ber, even  the  weakest,  suffers,  all  the  others  suffer  with 
him. 

This  sense  of  world-wide  unity  has  been  mightily  re- 
enforced by  the  war.  We  have  learned  that  in  the  greater 
issues,  such  as  those  of  war  and  peace,  we  are  no  longer 
arbiters  of  our  own  destiny.  What  we  shall  do  and  suffer 
is  decided  for  us  by  others.  It  is  for  us  only  to  determine 
in  what  spirit  and  to  what  end  we  shall  do  what  we  do 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


183 


and  endure  what  we  endure.  We  did  not  desire  war.  We 
went  to  the  limit  to  avoid  it.  But  war  came  and  claimed 
its  toll  of  our  men  and  our  means  and  we  could  not 
withhold  them  if  we  would.  And  as  the  war  taught  us 
our  unity  in  dependence  and  in  suffering,  so  it  taught 
us  unity  in  resolution  and  in  action.  Had  ten  times  more 
been  asked  of  us,  it  would  have  been  forthcoming,  for  the 
need  brought  forth  the  will  and  in  need  and  will  alike  the 
nation  found  itself  at  one. 

What  happened  to  the  nation  as  it  faced  the  tasks  of 
war  is  happening  to  the  Church  as  it  faces  the  tasks  of 
peace.  For  here  again  we  face  a great  need  and  see  that 
only  the  greatest  possible  degree  of  unity  can  suffice. 
What  that  need  is,  and  the  nature  of  the  appeal,  we  have 
already  been  forced  to  consider  in  the  course  of  the  pre- 
ceding pages.  It  is  the  need  of  a united  witness  to  a 
world  which  out  of  the  experience  of  suffering  has  come 
to  doubt  the  reality  of  the  things  for  which  the  Church 
stands. 

This  need  meets  us  in  the  field  of  Christian  missions  in 
the  widest  sense  of  that  term.  We  have  never  seen  the 
situation  in  the  non-Christian  world  as  clearly  we  see 
it  now.1  We  know  not  only  the  need  but  also  the  oppor- 
tunity— the  open  doors  of  invitation  and  appeal.  From 
every  country  of  the  world  they  come  asking  for  our  help, 
our  sympathy,  our  service.  We  can  meet  the  call  ade- 
quately only  by  meeting  it  together.  We  know  this  be- 
cause we  have  tried  to  do  it  separately  and  failed.  So 
from  the  mission  field,  in  the  most  direct  and  insistent 
way,  comes  the  call  for  union,  and  in  ways  outlined  else- 
where in  this  report  we  are  beginning  to  respond. 

It  comes  to  us  from  our  own  country,  as  we  face  the 
industrial  and  social  unrest  which  gives  us  such  serious 
food  for  thought.  In  another  report  we  have  studied  this 

'See  the  earlier  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  War  and  the 
Religious  Outlook,  entitled,  “The  Missionary  Outlook  in  the 
Light  of  the  War,”  Association  Press,  1920. 


184 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


challenge  and  found  that  it  is  one  that  only  the  Church  of 
Christ  can  meet.2  For  what  the  labor  movement  is  asking 
today  is  not  primarily  wages  and  hours  and  insurance, 
but  understanding  and  sympathy  and  brotherhood.  It 
wants  its  share  in  the  decisions  that  determine  its  own 
destiny  and  make  or  mar  the  lives  of  the  workers.  But 
this  is  the  sphere  of  personal  relations,  with  which  the 
Church  by  its  very  nature  has  to  do.  Till  Christ’s  prin- 
ciples come  to  be  recognized  as  the  law  of  society,  as 
well  as  of  the  individual,  and  His  will  be  done  in  earth  as 
in  heaven,  there  can  be  no  permanent  industrial  peace. 
But  how  shall  these  principles  prevail  and  this  will  be 
done  till  Christians,  now  divided,  find  some  way  to  plan 
and  act  more  effectively  together?  A just  and  harmoni- 
ous social  order  cannot  be  the  product  of  a divided 
Church. 

When  we  pass  from  our  own  country  to  the  field  of 
international  relations,  we  find  the  same  conclusion  reen- 
forced. The  war  that  was  to  have  brought  world  peace 
has  proved  the  parent  of  new  wars.  Wherever  we  look 
we  find  rivalry,  suspicion,  fear.  Men  long  for  a better 
world,  but  they  despair  of  realizing  it,  and  here,  as  always, 
hope  deferred  has  made  the  heart  sick.  The  very  League 
of  Nations  which  is  proposed  as  a remedy  for  the  world’s 
illness  is  rejected  by  some  because  it  yields  too  much  to 
idealism  and  by  others  because  it  gives  too  little.  What 
might  be  done  is  left  undone  because  the  mutual  trust 
which  is  the  condition  of  common  action  is  lacking.  Is 
there  not  here  a call  to  Christian  union  which  transcends 
in  importance  all  other  issues?  For  it  is  Christianity 
which  proclaims  the  very  ideals  in  the  name  of  which  any 
League  of  Nations  must  function,  and  with  these  ideals, 
what  is  far  more  important,  promises  power  to  realize 
them.  But  how  shall  men  believe  in  the  power,  and  so 


’The  report  referred  to  is  “The  Church  and  Industrial  Re- 
construction,” Association  Press,  1920. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


185 


bear  the  sacrifice  for  which  the  ideal  calls,  unless  Chris- 
tians themselves  shall,  in  manifest  and  visible  form,  give 
a demonstration  of  the  power  of  God’s  Spirit  to  dispel  sus- 
picion, cast  out  fear,  and  unite  in  common  love  and  serv- 
ice those  who  have  given  their  allegiance  to  the  God  of 
Love  ? What  the  nature  of  the  Christian  religion  reveals, 
the  need  of  the  time  demands — a common  spirit  express- 
ing itself  in  common  service  through  a common  Church. 

3.  Factors  Growing  Out  of  Past  Experience  of  the  Prac- 
tice of  Cooperation 

The  third  help  in  the  effort  to  realize  Christian  unity 
is  the  experience  already  gained  of  the  practicability  of 
working  together.  What  this  experience  has  been  and 
the  forms  which  it  has  taken  we  have  elsewhere  discussed 
so  fully  that  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  repeat  the  story 
here,  but  it  may  be  wTorth  while  to  recall  for  our  encour- 
agement how  recent  much  of  this  experience  is  and  how 
great  the  change  in  sentiment  of  the  rank  and  file  of 
Christians  which  has  resulted  from  it. 

The  movement  for  union,  of  course,  is  not  of  recent 
origin.  In  every  age  men  have  longed  and  prayed  for  it, 
and  for  more  than  two  centuries  the  story  of  the  differ- 
ent movements  for  union  has  constituted  a considerable 
part  of  the  history  of  American  Christianity.3  But  cer- 
tainly the  extent  and  power  of  the  movement  have  greatly 
increased.  The  attitude  of  the  rank  and  file  of  Christians 
toward  their  fellow-Christians  of  other  names  differs 
widely  today  from  what  it  was  a half  century  or  even  a 
quarter  of  a century  ago.  Things  seem  possible  now 
which  were  then  almost  beyond  the  range  of  discussion, 
and  things  natural  which  then  would  have  seemed  too 
much  to  hope  for.  In  this  growing  familiarity  with  the 

3The  whole  historical  study  which  constitutes  the  second  part 
of  this  report  makes  this  unmistakably  clear.  This  historical 
study,  moreover,  is  of  great  value  for  those  who  are  con- 
cerned about  church  unity  today. 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


1 86 

idea  of  union,  which  is  the  result  of  a generation  of  work- 
ing together,  we  have  an  asset  the  value  of  which  it  is 
difficult  to  overestimate. 

This  disposition  to  live  and  work  together  was 
mightily  reenforced  by  the  war.  The  war,  as  we  have 
seen,  not  only  revealed  the  nature  of  the  unity  already 
attained,  but  created  new  organs  through  which  this  unity 
could  find  expression.  The  foundations  already  laid  by 
the  Federal  Council  and  its  commissions  made  possible 
the  General  War-Time  Commission  of  the  Churches, 
which  carried  these  principles  a step  further,  and  made 
possible  also  the  more  ambitious  attempt  of  the  Inter- 
church World  Movement.  In  the  momentary  reaction 
from  the  disappointed  anticipations  for  this  movement, 
the  danger  is  that  we  shall  underestimate  its  great  serv- 
ice to  the  cause  of  Christian  union.  To  how  many  to 
whom  the  idea  was  unfamiliar  it  has  been  brought  by  the 
propaganda  of  this  movement,  we  shall  probably  never 
know,  but  in  the  wide  publicity  given  the  idea  and,  above 
all,  the  many  conferences  which  brought  men  of  all  com- 
munions into  personal  contact,  there  was  laid  a founda- 
tion of  experience  which  is  rich  in  promise  for  the 
future. 

One  phase  of  our  war  experience  already  referred  to 
deserves  special  emphasis — namely,  the  fact  that  in  the 
organization  which  expressed  the  unity  of  the  Christian 
forces,  the  General  War-Time  Commission,  a way  was 
found  to  include  churches  like  the  Episcopal  and  the 
Lutheran,  which  had  hitherto  found  it  impossible  to 
take  their  full  place  with  other  churches  in  the  Fed- 
eral Council.  Here  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  in  the 
chapel  at  Camp  Upton,  for  example,  a building  erected 
on  government  ground  for  the  use  of  the  religious  forces 
of  the  Camp,  financed  cooperatively  by  seven  different 
communions  and  used  by  all  with  the  utmost  fraternity, 
we  have  an  experiment  in  Christian  cooperation  which 
deserves  study  and  may  well  find  imitators. 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


187 


4.  Factors  Growing  Out  of  a Better  Understanding  of 
the  Nature  of  the  Union  to  Be  Sought 

One  more  influence  needs  to  be  noted  to  make  our 
analysis  complete,  and  that  is  the  help  which  has  grown 
out  of  a better  understanding  of  the  nature  of  the  union 
to  be  sought.  We  are  coming  to  see  the  falsity  of  the 
“either,  or”  type  of  union.  Comprehension,  not  uniform- 
ity, is  the  idea  at  which  we  aim.  Instead  of  trying  to 
erect  barriers  to  keep  out  of  the  Church  those  whose  reli- 
gious experience  differs  from  our  own,  we  ask  ourselves 
whether  there  is  not  something  wrong  with  a system 
which  separates  us  from  those  who,  however  different 
in  experience,  are  yet  manifestly  moved  by  the  spirit  of 
Christ.  Paul’s  picture  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  the  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  is  recovering  its  rightful  place 
in  our  definition  of  the  ideal  of  the  Church  and  we  realize 
that  in  the  Catholic  Church  of  the  future  all  types  of 
experience  and  practice  which  have  appeared  in  the  great 
ages  and  sections  of  Christian  history  must  find  a home. 

In  this  conclusion  we  have  been  greatly  aided  by  the 
result  of  recent  studies  in  church  history.  We  realize, 
as  we  did  not  before,  how  much  more  complex  and  many- 
sided  is  the  history  of  the  Church  than  we  had  supposed, 
how  many  different  forms  of  belief  and  practice  it  re- 
veals, how  widely  its  later  developments  differ  from  its 
earlier  and  simpler  forms.  What  seems  strange  and  out 
of  place  judged  solely  by  its  present  surroundings  be- 
comes natural  and  intelligible  when  interpreted  in  the 
light  of  its  history.  Instead  of  writing  as  lawyers  who 
hold  briefs  to  prove  the  case  of  their  own  section  of  the 
Church,  scholars  of  all  the  churches  have  joined  in  im- 
partial research  from  the  results  of  which  all  Christians 
alike  are  gaining.  As  a result  a new  temper  has  been  in- 
troduced into  our  discussions — a temper  of  sympathetic 
and  openminded  inquiry — which  is  full  of  promise  for  the 
future. 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


1 88 

Further  help  has  been  afforded  by  the  comparative 
study  of  religions.  As  we  have  come  to  know  other  reli- 
gions of  the  world  better,  many  misconceptions  have  been 
cleared  away.  We  understand  their  similarities  to  Chris- 
tianity but  also  the  wide  gap  which  separates  them  from 
it,  and  in  the  knowledge  of  that  which  distinguishes  Chris- 
tianity from  them  in  spite  of  its  similarities  we  find  a 
point  of  contact  with  our  own  fellow-Christians  from 
whom  we  have  hitherto  been  separated.  If  Christ  be, 
as  modern  critical  study  establishes,  the  distinctive  fea- 
ture in  the  Christian  religion  and  the  point  by  which  it  is 
separated  from  all  others,  then  those  who  alike  own  alle- 
giance to  Christ  and  work  for  His  Kingdom  have  a bond 
of  union  more  potent  than  any  differences. 

Nor  must  we  overlook  the  contribution  of  the  psychol- 
ogy of  religion,  with  its  better  insight  into  the  nature  of 
religious  experience.  This  is  teaching  us  how  impossible 
it  is  to  divorce  doctrine  from  life.  It  shows  us  that 
growth  is  a law  of  religion  as  of  all  life,  and  that  truth 
drives  out  error  step  by  step  as  light  drives  out  darkness. 
Progress  we  see  to  be  a fact  in  Christian  history — prog- 
ress in  the  appreciation  and  in  the  application  of  truth — 
and  this  insight  has  its  reflex  influence  upon  our  defini- 
tion of  Christian  union.  In  an  expanding  and  self-renew- 
ing religion  like  Christianity,  the  Church  can  never  be  a 
finished  thing.  There  must  be  space  in  its  capacious 
structure  for  ever  new  rooms,  in  which  free  men  may 
try  new  experiments  to  add  to  the  beauty  and  richness  of 
the  whole. 

So  modern  science  is  teaching  us  sympathy.  It  is  help- 
ing us  to  enter  into  the  meaning  of  other  types  of  experi- 
ence than  our  own  and  so  providing  contacts  out  of  which 
the  larger  experience  of  the  future  is  to  be  born.  What 
we  need  above  all  is  that  this  new  insight  should  be 
shared.  The  vision  that  has  come  to  the  few  should 
become  the  property  of  the  many,  so  that  that  common 
Christian  consciousness  may  be  reached  which  shall  make 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


189 


possible  the  Church  of  the  future.  Surely  the  time  has 
come  when  the  whole  Church,  no  less,  should  be  the 
study  of  each  part  of  it,  and  in  this  many-sided  and  fas- 
cinating history  no  part  deserves  more  careful  attention, 
or  will  repay  it  better,  than  the  story  of  the  movement 
toward  more  complete  unity  which  forms  the  subject  of 
the  present  report. 

III.  Points  of  Contact  between  Differing  Atti- 
tudes TOWARD  THE  EXISTING  CHURCHES 

We  still  find,  however,  even  among  those  who  believe 
in  cooperation  and  admit  the  possibility  of  union,  a dis- 
agreement as  to  whether  anything  like  a corporate  union 
is  desirable.  There  are  those  who  regard  the  presence 
of  separate  churches  side  by  side  as  unfortunate  and  un- 
desirable, but  there  are  others  who  regard  it  as  a normal 
and  even  a desirable  situation.  Upon  an  understanding 
of  this  difference  and  the  reasons  which  lead  to  the  posi- 
tions on  either  side  depends  our  definition  of  the  aim  of 
Christian  union,  and  therefore  our  judgment  of  the  spe- 
cific steps  to  be  taken  to  secure  it. 

On  the  one  hand  we  find  those  who  believe  that  the 
existence  side  by  side  of  different  bodies  calling  them- 
selves churches  of  Christ,  each  having  complete  auton- 
omy and  independence  in  the  sphere  of  belief  and  prac- 
tice, and  often  competing  with  one  another  for  the  sup- 
port of  Christian  people  within  the  same  territory,  con- 
stitutes so  flagrant  a violation  of  the  ideal  of  Christ  as 
to  become  a public  scandal  which  all  Christians  should 
unite  to  put  a stop  to.  They  are  ready,  of  course,  to 
admit  that  in  the  Providence  of  God  the  existence  of  the 
different  churches  as  separate  bodies  has  been  the  means 
of  preserving  aspects  of  Christian  truth  which,  apart 
from  this  separate  existence,  might  have  been  imperiled, 
if  not  lost  sight  of  altogether.  But  they  believe  that  the 
lessons  taught  by  the  separation  have  now  been  learned, 
that  new  issues  have  arisen  which  demand  the  union  of 


190 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Christians,  and  that  to  perpetuate  this  separation  after 
the  reasons  for  it  have  ceased  to  exist  is  to  act  wrongly 
and  to  imperil  weighty  interests.  To  this  conclusion  they 
are  impelled  by  the  various  motives  that  we  have  dis- 
cussed. Most  important  of  all,  they  are  convinced  that 
the  spiritual  unity  which  underlies  the  Christian  religion 
requires  some  external  and  organic  expression,  not  only 
for  its  revelation  to  the  world  but  even  for  its  full  reali- 
zation and  adequate  functioning  among  the  members  of 
the  Church  themselves.  To  men  of  this  temper  organic 
union,  or  the  existence  of  some  one  comprehensive  or- 
ganization in  which  all  members  of  the  Church  of  Christ 
are  in  some  manner  embraced,  becomes  the  supreme 
object  of  Christian  effort  and  prayer. 

To  others,  however,  equally  earnest  and  sincere,  the 
matter  appears  in  quite  a different  light.  To  them  the 
existence  side  by  side  of  a number  of  different  churches 
seems  entirely  natural  and  fitting.  They  recognize,  to 
be  sure,  the  disadvantage  and  scandal  of  the  existing 
situation,  but  they  regard  these  as  due  to  other  causes 
which  can  and  should  be  corrected.  No  less  convinced 
than  their  fellow-Christians  of  the  other  school  as  to  the 
importance  of  Christian  unity,  they  regard  this  primarily 
as  a matter  of  inward  spirit  and  temper,  and  they  fear 
that  insistence  upon  outward  organization  will  divert 
attention  from  this  essential  matter.  They  recall  the 
fact  that  the  ages  of  outward  unity  were  not  the  ages 
of  greatest  spiritual  sympathy,  and  they  point  to  coun- 
tries where  a single  state  church  holds  sway  as  ex- 
amples of  the  deadening  effect  of  ecclesiastical  uniform- 
ity. Mankind,  they  feel,  is  composed  of  men  of  very 
different  natures  and  points  of  view.  Our  present  sys- 
tem provides  for  these  differences  in  the  easiest  and  most 
natural  way.  Provided  only  we  recognize  that  our  fel- 
ilow-Christians  of  other  names  than  we  are,  as  truly  as 
ourselves,  members  of  the  one  Church  of  Christ,  pro- 
vided we  arrange  through  proper  agencies  for  confer- 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


191 


ence  and  understanding  as  to  those  methods  by  which  it 
is  essential  that  all  Christians  should  work  together, 
there  is  no  reason,  they  say,  why  our  present  independent 
organizations  should  not  be  continued.  As  many  states 
may  make  up  one  nation,  so  many  churches  may  compose 
one  Church.  Federal  union,  therefore,  as  distinct  from 
organic  union,  constitutes  the  ideal  toward  which  this 
group  of  Christians  believes  we  should  strive. 

For  convenience,  we  have  expressed  the  difference 
above  described  in  the  form  of  a sharp  contrast.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  however,  the  line  of  demarcation  is  by 
no  means  as  clear  as  our  description  would  seem  to  imply. 
Each  side  is  coming  increasingly  to  recognize  the  force 
of  the  arguments  to  which  the  other  appeals,  and  to  make 
place  for  them  in  its  statement  of  the  case. 

Thus  those  who  consciously  set  organic  union  as  their 
ideal  conceive  the  union  they  would  attain  as  embracing 
lesser  unities,  which  shall  express  and  conserve  the  values 
which  have  given  rise  to  the  existing  churches.  They  no 
longer  look  upon  them  as  mere  perversions  and  errors, 
but  as  legitimate  affirmations  of  neglected  aspects  of 
Christian  truth.  They  do  not  ask  or  desire  any  surrender 
of  principle  on  the  part  of  those  to  be  embraced  in  the 
larger  unity,  but  rather  such  mutual  recognition  of  truth 
and  gift  as  shall  make  it  possible  for  all  aspects  of  Chris- 
tian grace  and  experience  to  find  free  expression  within 
one  Catholic  Church.  As  Roman  Catholicism  makes 
room  through  its  monastic  orders  for  widely  different  em- 
phases of  doctrine  and  types  of  experience,  so  within 
the  comprehensive  Church  to  which  these  advocates  of 
union  look  forward,  the  doctrinal  emphasis  of  the  Pres- 
byterians, the  order  and  dignity  of  the  Episcopalians,  the 
fervor  and  missionary  zeal  of  the  Methodists,  and  the 
insistence  upon  personal  freedom  and  initiative  for 
which  Congregationalist  and  Baptist  stand,  will  all 
find  expression.  Union  is  to  be  attained  by  addition, 
not  by  subtraction — by  comprehension,  not  by  surrender. 


192 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  value  the  flexibility  and 
variety  of  our  present  system  are  increasingly  aware  of 
its  limitation  and  weakness.  Conscious  though  they  are 
of  the  essential  spiritual  unity  of  believers,  they  real- 
ize that  our  present  system  of  church  organization  pre- 
sents practical  obstacles  to  the  expression  of  unity  in 
action.  We  have  seen  how  within  those  denominations 
like  the  Congregationalist  and  Baptist,  which  insist  most 
strongly  on  the  autonomy  of  the  individual  congregation, 
the  exigencies  of  the  missionary  appeal  have  given  rise 
to  powerful  boards  through  which  the  denomination  as 
a whole  functions  on  a nation-wide  scale.  But  the  same 
motive  applies  also  to  interdenominational  activity. 
Through  organizations  like  the  Federal  Council,  the 
Home  Missions  Council,  and  others,  common  action  on 
the  part  of  a large  number  of  Christian  churches  has 
become  a familiar  idea.  The  war  greatly  increased  this 
tendency  to  common  activity.  The  task  of  Christianizing 
the  world  is  now  seen  to  be  too  complex  and  difficult  to 
be  successfully  accomplished  by  a divided  Christendom, 
and,  in  spite  of  the  protest  of  the  individualists  of  all 
schools,  the  sentiment  for  union  is  unmistakably  gaining 
ground  every  day. 

Thus  while  the  advocates  of  organic  union  are  coming 
more  and  more  to  recognize  the  importance  of  variety 
and  freedom  in  the  organizations  of  the  Church,  those 
who  insist  on  freedom  are  using  their  liberty  to  come 
together.  Even  where  differences  of  theory  remain,  the 
field  of  common  action  is  constantly  enlarging.  And 
here  as  always  practice  and  theory  act  and  react,  and 
experience,  that  supreme  teacher  of  charity,  now  puts 
into  names  that  used  to  divide  a more  generous  and 
congenial  meaning. 

IV.  Bearing  on  the  Different  Kinds  of  Union 
Proposed 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  discussion  we  are  prepared 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


193 

to  consider  what  is  involved  in  the  different  types  of 
union  that  have  been  proposed. 

1.  Administrative  Union 

Administrative  union — which  we  have  defined  as  any 
union  of  official  boards  or  other  agencies  of  the  Church, 
as  distinguished  from  a union  of  the  denominations  them- 
selves as  corporate  units — is  related  to  the  more  complete 
types  of  union  (federal  and  organic)  in  two  ways:  first, 
it  provides  the  machinery  through  which  these  more 
thorough-going  unions  may  function ; second,  since  it 
depends  for  its  existence  on  the  sanction  (expressed  or 
implied)  of  the  parent  bodies  whose  agencies  unite,  its 
extent  is  limited  by  their  attitude  to  the  larger  question 
of  federal  or  organic  union.  Those  churches  which  are 
not  willing  to  enter  into  federal  or  organic  union  com- 
monly limit  the  freedom  of  their  boards  to  cooperate 
with  others  in  administrative  union.  Hence  the  larger 
question  becomes  important  not  for  its  own  sake  merely, 
but  because  of  its  bearing  upon  the  possibility  of  coop- 
eration in  nearer  and  more  practicable  matters. 

Separate  as  the  paths  they  seem  to  follow,  the  move- 
ments toward  organic  union  and  toward  federal  union 
are  drawing  ever  nearer  and  nearer  together.  Those  who 
believe  in  organic  union  are  coming  to  see  that  for  the 
Church,  as  for  the  nation,  federal  union  may  be  not  only 
the  path  to  organic  union,  but  at  least  one  among  other 
possible  forms  which  organic  union  may  take.  Those, 
on  the  other  hand,  who  have  refused  to  go  beyond  federal 
union  are  discovering  that  in  the  measure  that  federation 
is  really  effective,  it  is  because  it  expresses  and  promotes 
that  consciousness  of  common  unity  in  Christ  which  it  is 
the  aim  of  organic  union  fully  to  realize.  In  spite  of 
this  approximation,  however,  there  is  still  a difference 
which  in  order  to  clarity  of  thought  it  is  important  for 
us  to  recognize. 


194 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


2.  Federal  Union. 

By  federal  union  we  have  understood  any  form  of 
official  union  between  denominations  as  a whole  which 
leaves  their  original  organization  unimpaired  and  re- 
serves for  each  of  the  units  thus  united  a large  field  of 
independent  power,  authority,  and  initiative.  The  best 
known  example  is  the  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches 
of  Christ  in  America,  a body  constituted,  as  we  have  seen, 
by  the  action  of  no  less  than  thirty  cooperating  de- 
nominations, each  of  which  makes  a moderate  contribu- 
tion to  the  support  of  the  Council  and  is  represented  in 
its  executive  and  administrative  committees  by  duly  ap- 
pointed delegates. 

It  is  this  retention  of  the  individuality  of  the  uniting 
churches  unimpaired  which  differentiates  federal  union 
from  other  forms  of  corporate  union.  Even  if  the  con- 
stituent bodies  in  a federal  union  delegate  their  powers 
to  a central  agency,  they  are  able  to  resume  them  at  any 
time.  But  organic  union  carries  with  it  a note  of  irrevoc- 
ableness, such  as  exists  in  the  relation  of  the  several  states 
in  our  nation  to  the  central  government. 

The  analogy  of  the  states  of  the  Union  is  a helpful 
one,  because  it  shows  not  only  the  difference  between 
federal  union  and  organic  union,  but  also  their  points  of 
contact  and  transition.  The  theory  of  the  southern  states 
before  1861  was  the  theory  of  federal  union  in  the  nar- 
rower sense.  They  had  surrendered  powers,  but  for  the 
time  only.  What  they  had  given  they  believed  they  could 
resume.  But  to  the  North  this  alternative  no  longer 
existed.  Federal  union  to  them  meant  organic  union: 
not  because  they  denied  the  right  of  the  separate  states 
to  existence  and  sovereignty  within  the  sphere  of  rights 
reserved,  but  because  they  believed  that  the  rights  that 
were  surrendered  when  the  Union  was  constituted  were 
surrendered  irrevocably. 

In  distinguishing  organic  union  from  federal  union, 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


195 


therefore,  this  is  the  point  on  which  we  must  insist.  Or- 
ganic union  is  not  a matter  of  degree  only,  but  of  kind. 
It  is  union  which  may  be  more  or  less  extensive  but 
which,  so  far  as  it  extends,  is  in  its  nature  irrevocable, 
or  at  least  is  believed  to  be  so  by  those  who  enter  into  it. 

Applying  these  distinctions  to  the  existing  or  proposed 
forms  of  federal  union  we  see  that  a double  distinction 
must  be  made : first,  as  to  the  extent  of  the  union ; sec- 
ond, as  to  its  significance.  What  powers  have  the  unit- 
ing bodies  delegated?  How  far  do  they  regard  this 
delegation  as  final  or  revocable? 

In  the  case  of  the  existing  Federal  Council  of  the 
Churches  of  Christ  in  America  we  see  that  at  both  these 
points  it  stops  far  short  of  organic  union.  The  powers 
that  are  delegated  are  so  slight  that  they  do  not  seriously 
affect  the  life  of  the  cooperating  organizations.  No  com- 
prehensive administrative  machinery  is  provided ; no  ade- 
quate scheme  of  finance  is  undertaken.  Neither  in  or- 
ganization nor  in  resources  is  it  furnished  to  undertake 
on  behalf  of  the  churches  common  action  on  a scale  as 
imposing  as  was  proposed  by  the  Interchurch  World 
Movement. 

This  limitation  of  powers,  however,  is  not  inherent  in 
the  plan  of  the  Federal  Council.  It  is  quite  conceivable 
that  the  bodies  which  form  the  Council  might  have  de- 
cided to  enlarge  the  powers  given  to  their  representa- 
tives, so  as  to  enable  them  to  do  together  as  a Council 
the  things  that  the  Interchurch  World  Movement  pro- 
posed. Had  this  been  done,  certain  weaknesses  in  the 
Interchurch  World  Movement  would  have  been  avoided. 
Contact  with  the  existing  denominations  would  have  been 
closer  and  more  responsible,  and  while  the  procedure 
would  have  been  slower,  it  is  a fair  question  whether  in 
the  long  run  larger  results  would  not  have  been  attained. 
As  it  was,  for  reasons  into  which  we  need  not  enter  here, 
the  Interchurch  World  Movement  developed  through  an- 
other center,  lacked  any  permanent,  responsible,  central 


196 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


executive  agency,  and  left  its  relation  to  the  existing  ad- 
ministrative agencies  of  the  Federal  Council  and  other 
organizations  undefined. 

Still  more  noticeable  is  the  limitation  imposed  upon  the 
Federal  Council  by  the  definition  of  its  objective.  The 
Federal  Council  includes  churches  which  look  to  organic 
union  as  the  goal  of  their  effort,  but  also  churches  which 
as  at  present  constituted  would  refuse  the  surrender  of 
whatever  sovereignty  such  union  would  require.  Hence 
they  reserve  the  right  to  withdraw  from  the  Federal 
Council  whenever  it  shall  take  action  they  disapprove, 
and  in  at  least  one  important  case  such  withdrawal  was 
only  narrowly  averted. 

Yet  it  is  clear  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  idea  of  fed- 
eral union  as  such  which  requires  this  double  restriction. 
It  is  possible,  as  we  have  seen,  to  carry  the  delegation  of 
powers  so  far  as  to  make  possible  effective  administra- 
tive union.  It  is  equally  possible  through  the  experience 
of  years  of  working  together  to  acquire  such  a common 
corporate  consciousness  that  the  thought  of  withdrawal 
would  seem  to  those  who  constitute  the  Council  to  involve 
such  serious  consequences  for  the  unity  of  the  Church 
as  to  be  unthinkable.  Certainly,  if  organic  union  is  ever 
to  come  about,  it  would  seem  as  though  it  could  only  be 
through  some  such  intermediate  stage. 

The  analogy  of  the  Federal  Government  in  the  years 
immediately  preceding  and  following  the  Civil  War  is 
instructive.  In  this  case  men  of  conflicting  theories 
agreed  upon  common  action  and  lived  and  suffered  to- 
gether, until  experience  finally  convinced  even  those  who 
had  regarded  the  federal  union  as  temporary  and  rev- 
ocable that  it  was  in  truth,  and  of  right  ought  to  be, 
indissoluble. 

Yet  the  analogy,  while  it  shows  how  federal  union 
may  pass  into  organic  union,  makes  clear  also  the  rea- 
sons why  so  many  who  believe  in  the  first  are  suspicious 
of  the  second.  We  speak  of  the  South  as  convinced  by 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


197 


the  North  that  the  federal  union  of  the  states  was  irrev- 
ocable, but  this  was  not  accomplished  without  the  expe- 
rience of  civil  war.  But  to  many  Christians  freedom 
is  the  essence  of  Christianity,  and  a union  brought  about 
from  without  by  the  force  of  a central  authority  would 
seem  to  them  the  negation  of  the  ideal  for  which  their 
fathers  fought  and  died.  Protestantism  itself  arose  as  a 
protest  against  such  a conception  of  the  Christian  Church, 
and  any  proposal  which  even  seems  to  look  toward  the 
surrender  of  the  powers  regained  at  the  Reformation 
would  be  resented  to  the  uttermost. 

We  may  further  illustrate  the  relation  between  federal 
union  and  organic  union  by  the  example  of  the  “Phila- 
delphia plan”  already  described.  This  plan  retains  the 
separate  existence,  organization,  and  rights  of  the  uniting 
churches,  but  proposes  a council  representing  the  differ- 
ent uniting  churches  which,  within  certain  definitely  pre- 
scribed limits,  shall  possess  powers  legislative,  executive, 
and  judicial.  More  especially  it  will  have  power,  by  the 
consolidation  of  boards  and  the  like,  to  create  the  appro- 
priate machinery  to  secure  effective  administrative  union. 
This  is  clearly  federal  union.  Is  it  or  is  it  not  organic 
union?  This  depends,  first,  upon  the  nature  of  the 
powers  assigned;  secondly,  upon  the  irrevocableness 
of  the  assignment.  Are  the  churches  prepared  to  assign 
to  the  new  council  so  large  a part  of  their  existing  powers 
of  legislation  and  action  that  the  council  will  henceforth 
be  the  body  to  which  the  uniting  churches  will  feel  that 
they  owe  their  major  allegiance?  Secondly,  will  this 
assignment  be  so  definite  and  permanent  that  in  case  the 
action  of  the  new  council  conflicts  with  the  preferences 
and  habits  of  the  individual  denominations  they  will  abide 
by  its  decisions,  as  the  loyal  states  obeyed  the  decisions 
of  the  National  Government?  Or,  will  they  count  them- 
selves primarily  Presbyterians,  Congregationalists,  and 
the  like,  and  feel  free  whenever  they  desire  to  withdraw 
from  the  union?  If  the  former  be  true,  it  is  clear  that 


198 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


we  have  a case  of  organic  union;  if  the  latter,  it  can  be 
at  most  only  a step  in  that  direction. 

From  what  has  been  said  it  is  clear  that  what  differ- 
entiates organic  from  federal  union  is  not  simply  or  even 
chiefly  the  nature  of  the  action  proposed,  but  even  more 
the  attitude  of  mind  which  accompanies  such  action. 
There  is,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  one  case  a feeling  of 
irrevocableness  and  inevitableness  which  is  absent  in  the 
other. 

3.  Organic  Union 

If  what  we  have  said  thus  far  be  correct,  it  is  clear 
that  two  things  enter  into  the  definition  of  organic  union : 
first,  the  nature  of  the  union  proposed;  second,  the  state 
of  mind  which  accompanies  it.  Organic  union  is,  in  the 
first  place,  the  corporate  union  of  two  independent  and 
sovereign  corporations  in  such  a form  that  within  limits 
agreed  upon  there  is  now  but  one  body  where  formerly 
there  were  two.  It  is,  in  the  second  place,  the  acceptance 
of  this  action  as  final.  Organic  union  takes  place  when 
the  center  of  allegiance  is  transferred  from  the  older 
bodies  to  the  new,  so  that  in  case  of  a conflict  between  the 
two  conscience  requires  that  one  follow  the  latter  rather 
than  the  former. 

Organic  union  is,  in  the  first  place,  corporate  union,  a 
surrender  of  certain  powers  to  a new  and  inclusive  or- 
ganization. How  far  must  this  surrender  go?  How 
much  must  one  give  up  in  order  to  bring  about  organic 
union?  This  is  a question  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to 
answer  apart  from  the  considerations  already  referred 
to.  One  might  give  up  for  the  time  being  all  one’s  powers 
of  decision  and  action.  One  might  achieve  complete  ad- 
ministrative union.  Yet  if  one  retained  at  heart  the 
belief  that  this  was  only  temporary,  and  was  prepared  at 
any  moment  when  one  disliked  or  disapproved  the  action 
taken  by  the  newly  constituted  body  to  take  back  the 
surrendered  powers,  it  is  clear  that  we  would  not  have 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


199 


organic  union.  On  the  other  hand,  one  might  retain  very 
large  powers,  as  the  states  retained  such  powers  in  the 
Federal  Union,  or  as  the  monastic  orders  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  but  if  the  powers  conceded  to  the  cen- 
tral body  were  recognized  as  of  supreme  importance,  so 
that  one’s  major  allegiance  was  to  the  united  Church 
rather  than  to  the  denominational  units  that  compose  it, 
organic  union  would  have  been  reached. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  there  can  be  more  than  one  kind 
of  organic  union,  as  there  can  be  more  than  one  kind  of 
federal  union.  We  have  seen  that  there  can  be  federal 
union  which,  while  extensive,  is  not  organic,  because  the 
units  concerned  retain  all  their  original  powers  unim- 
paired. So  there  can  be  federal  union  which  is  organic 
because  within  the  sphere  affected  it  is  irrevocable. 
But  there  may  also  be  organic  union  which  is  not  federal 
at  all,  in  that  it  involves  the  complete  disappearance  of 
the  original  units.  Organic  union  may  be  attained  by  the 
entire  dissolution  of  the  existing  denominations  and  the 
fusion  of  their  elements  in  one  new  organization  of  such 
form  that  the  former  identity  of  each  is  lost.  Or  it  may 
take  place  through  the  absorption  of  the  rest  of  the  unit- 
ing bodies  in  some  one  of  their  number,  which  thus  re- 
tains its  organization  and  powers  unimpaired.  It  is  such 
a complete  surrender  and  absorption  of  the  existing  de- 
nominational bodies  in  their  own  church  which  is  con- 
templated by  many  high  churchmen  of  every  denomina- 
tion. When  they  speak  of  organic  union  they  mean  the 
inclusion  of  all  persons  who  desire  to  be  recognized  as 
Christians  in  a single  authoritative  Church.  It  is  fear  of 
such  absorption  and  surrender  which  explains  the  strong 
opposition  of  powerful  groups  of  Christians  to  organic 
union  in  any  form.  It  is  important,  therefore,  to  remind 
ourselves  that,  however  prominent  such  a conception  may 
be  made  in  contemporary  discussion,  it  is  but  one  of  sev- 
eral possible  forms  of  organic  union  and  that  federal 
union  in  the  sense  in  which  we  have  defined  it  may  become 


200 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


as  truly  organic  in  all  the  essential  senses  of  that  term  as 
that  proposed  by  the  Church  of  Rome  itself. 

What  is  essential  in  the  matter  of  organic  union,  we 
repeat,  is  not  so  much  the  form  of  organization  as  the 
attitude  of  mind  involved.  Underlying  all  differences  of 
attitude  toward  the  practical  questions  involved  are  deep- 
seated  differences  as  to  the  conception  of  the  Church 
itself.  What  do  we  mean  by  the  Church  of  Christ?  What 
is  its  nature  and  authority?  Above  all,  what  is  the  rela- 
tion between  that  oneness  in  spirit  and  experience  which 
we  have  agreed  to  call  unity  and  the  outward  forms  of 
organization  to  which  we  have  reserved  the  term  union? 
Are  these  separable  or  do  they  necessarily  go  together? 
Which  is  dependent  upon  the  other?  How  far  may  spir- 
itual unity  coexist  with  differences  of  external  organiza- 
tion? According  to  the  way  in  which  one  answers  this 
question  will  be  his  attitude  to  the  question  of  organic 
union. 

The  importance  of  this  psychological  factor  may  be 
illustrated  by  recent  discussions  of  the  complete  organic 
union  which  is  sought  by  the  World  Conference  on  Faith 
and  Order,  looking  toward  the  reunion  of  all  Christen- 
dom. To  many  of  those  who  have  been  active  in  promot- 
ing this  movement  the  existence  of  more  than  one  or- 
ganized Christian  Church  is  a contradiction  of  terms. 
They  believe  that  it  was  Christ’s  purpose  to  found  one 
visible  Church.  They  believe  that  He  has  given  to  this 
Church  a definite  constitution  and  laws.  They  believe 
that  He  has  endowed  it  with  certain  powers  and  graces. 
Those  who  are  outside  its  protection  may  be  very  esti- 
mable people  judged  by  the  world’s  standard,  but  they 
lack  the  essential  marks  of  the  complete  Christian.  Much 
as  he  would  desire  to  do  so,  it  is  impossible  for  the  high 
churchman  to  associate  with  them  on  equal  terms  or  rec- 
ognize them  as  members  of  the  visible  Church  of  Christ. 

To  those  who  hold  such  a view  of  the  Church  it  is  clear 
that  organic  union  is  all-important.  It  is  not  only  the 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


201 


consequence  but  the  condition  of  that  spiritual  unity  on 
which  all  depends.  Organic  union  in  the  sense  of  cor- 
porate union  is  necessary  because  without  it  the  experi- 
ence of  complete  fellowship  in  Christ  is  impossible. 

To  Christians  of  the  independent  or  Congregational 
type,  on  the  other  hand,  the  matter  presents  itself  very 
differently.  To  them  the  true  Church  is  the  company  of 
the  regenerate,  and  this  already  exists  in  the  persons  of 
living  men  and  women.  It  is  not  coextensive  with  any 
single  church  or  with  all  together,  though  it  includes 
Christians  in  all.  Those  who  take  such  a view  of  the 
Church  may  believe  in  corporate  union  and  work  for  it 
for  a variety  of  reasons,  but  it  will  have  a very  different 
meaning  from  that  which  it  has  to  men  of  the  other  type. 
It  may  express  an  existing  unity  but  it  cannot  create  it, 
for  this  unity  exists  already  and  is  independent  of  any 
organization.  Indeed,  according  to  this  view,  the  effort 
to  create  an  external  union  among  Christians  may  defeat 
its  own  end,  for  no  institutional  boundary  can  correspond 
exactly  to  the  requirements  of  spiritual  geography,  and 
the  danger  is  that  in  our  effort  to  fence  good  Christians 
in  we  may  bar  equally  good  Christians  out.  If  men  of 
this  type  believe  in  the  organic  union  of  the  Church  and 
work  for  it,  it  must  be  for  some  other  reason  than  that 
spiritual  unity  depends  upon  it. 

Such  a reason  exists  in  the  intimate  relation  between 
form  and  spirit.  What  we  are  we  desire  to  express  and 
for  expression  organization  is  necessary.  Conversely, 
what  we  do  reacts  upon  our  spirit.  If  in  spirit  the  Church 
is  one,  it  is  natural  that  this  inward  unity  should  find 
some  outward  form  of  expression.  Conversely,  the  fail- 
ure to  provide  the  agency  for  such  common  expression 
will  react  in  division  of  sympathy  and  alienation  of  spirit. 

What  is  true  from  the  point  of  view  of  Christians 
themselves  is  even  truer  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
men  and  women  to  whom  Christianity  brings  its  message. 
They  judge  spirit  by  act  and  draw  conclusions  accord- 


202 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


ingly.  If  they  see  Christian  denominations  acting  inde- 
pendently, competing  for  members  and  influence,  making 
the  individual  denomination  the  major  interest  and  loy- 
alty, they  will  naturally  conclude  that  Christianity  is  a 
local  and  parochial  thing.  Only  a world  Church  can 
effectively  embody  to  the  world  a world  religion.  It  is 
this  consciousness  which  inspires  the  movement  for 
organic  union  in  its  broader  and  saner  form. 

Those  who  take  this  view  will  not  desire  to  obliterate 
the  distinction  between  the  existing  Christian  churches 
or  to  unwrite  their  history.  They  recognize  that  the 
unity  to  be  sought  must  be  unity  in  variety  and  as  variety 
is  found  among  Christians  in  the  inner  spiritual  life,  it 
should  reappear  in  the  institutions  of  the  Church.  But 
the  variety  must  be  variety  in  unity.  In  the  one  case  as 
in  the  other,  whatever  place  may  remain  for  denomina- 
tional freedom  and  local  initiative,  the  major  loyalty  must 
be  to  the  Church  as  a whole. 

What  is  true  of  organic  union  on  the  large  scale  as  it 
affects  Christendom  as  a whole  is  true  of  all  its  lesser 
and  more  circumscribed  forms,  as  these  affect  groups  of 
denominations  of  the  same  or  closely  related  families. 
In  each  case  two  distinct  factors  need  to  be  considered : 
the  form  of  organization  proposed  and  the  spirit  which 
prompts  it.  Only  when  both  are  present  can  we  have 
union  which  can  be  said  to  be  really  organic.  When  the 
will  to  unite  is  present  there  may  be  great  latitude  in  the 
forms  to  be  followed  and  within  the  new  organization 
lesser  units,  valuable  in  their  place,  may  find  a home. 

Indeed  no  movement  for  organic  union  on  a large  scale 
can  hope  for  success  which  is  not  preceded  and  accom- 
panied by  similar  union  of  various  branches  of  the  unit- 
ing denominations.  For  each  denomination  is  in  its 
history  and  traditions  almost  an  epitome  of  the  Church 
as  a whole.  It  includes  the  same  contrasts  in  temper  and 
spirit;  the  same  differences  in  theory  and  conviction;  the 
same  varieties  in  organization  and  activity.  Highly  or- 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 


203 


ganized  churches,  like  the  Protestant  Episcopal,  are  lim- 
ited in  their  power  of  cooperation  with  other  Christians 
by  the  lack  of  close  coordination  among  the  different 
dioceses.  Loosely  organized  churches  like  the  Baptists 
are  hindered  by  the  strength  of  their  consciousness  of 
the  spiritual  unity  already  existing.  In  each  case  there  is 
need  of  a period  of  education  and  experiment,  not  only 
in  understanding  the  point  of  view  of  other  Christian 
bodies,  but  in  mastering  the  limitations  and  weaknesses 
of  one’s  own.  This  will  involve,  among  other  things,  the 
improving  of  the  denominational  organization.  Machin- 
ery must  be  devised  through  which  united  action  can  be 
taken  when  the  conscience  of  the  denomination  is  ready 
for  the  step.  Such  machinery  is  lacking  today  in  most 
of  our  larger  churches,  or  if  it  exists  it  is  in  forms  so 
cumbrous  as  to  be  practically  unavailable. 

More  important,  however,  is  education  in  the  realm  of 
sentiment  and  feeling.  Existing  obstacles  to  union,  as 
we  have  seen,  are  of  two  kinds : those  which  spring  out 
of  the  exaggeration  of  the  importance  of  external  union 
and  those  which  spring  from  its  undue  depreciation. 
Each  group  of  extremists  fears  and  distrusts  the  other, 
but  between  them  they  are  strong  enough  to  hamper  the 
action  of  the  more  moderate  elements  which  both  desire 
union  and  think  they  see  how  it  can  be  attained. 

For  this  situation  there  is  only  one  remedy  and  that  is 
contact.  The  men  who  differ  must  get  together  and  this 
contact  must  begin  with  the  doing  of  the  things  as  to 
the  possibility  and  importance  of  which  all  agree.  That 
there  are  such  things  experience  abundantly  demonstrates. 
All  that  is  necessary  is  to  recognize  them,  to  classify 
them,  to  devise  agencies  for  doing  them,  and  to  bring 
home  to  the  consciousness  of  all  whose  cooperation  is 
necessary  the  facts  and  the  urgency  of  the  case. 

In  this  work  of  interpretation  such  definitions  as  we 
have  attempted  here  have  their  justification  and  their 
place.  In  itself  definition  cannot  take  the  place  of  action, 


204 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


but  it  can  help  to  make  action  possible  by  clearing  away 
misunderstanding  and  pointing  the  way  along  the  line  of 
greatest  present  promise  and  least  resistance.  Such  a 
line  of  least  resistance,  because  of  its  intimate  connection 
both  with  administrative  union  on  the  one  hand  and  or- 
ganic union  on  the  other,  federal  union  would  seem  to  be. 
In  this  direction,  then,  it  would  seem  that  the  next  steps 
in  the  path  of  Christian  union  must  be  taken. 


PART  II 

THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND 


CHAPTER  VI 


DIVISIVE  AND  UNITIVE  FORCES  IN  THE 
CHRISTIAN  CHURCH  PRIOR  TO  THE 
AMERICAN  PERIOD 

I.  The  Apostolic  Period 

The  early  Christians  were  a community  of  men  and 
women  called  of  God  and  ruled  by  His  Spirit.  They 
lived  in  the  world  but  were  not  of  it.  They  were  no 
longer  Jews  or  Gentiles  but  Christians,  representatives 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  They  lived  in  the  power  of  a 
new  hope,  a new  faith,  and  a new  love,  which  grew  out 
of  a new  attitude  and  disposition  Godward,  manward, 
and  worldward  begotten  in  them  by  Jesus  Christ.  They 
were  known  as  a “brotherhood,”  a “fellowship,”  “be- 
lievers,” “disciples,”  “saints.” 

Each  of  these  names  signifies  unity  of  spirit,  which 
is  symbolized  in  the  New  Testament  by  the  family,  the 
human  body,  the  flock  and  the  shepherd,  the  vine  and  the 
branches.  It  is  the  unity  of  life  and  of  an  organism; 
not  the  uniformity  of  law  or  of  a mechanism. 

The  apostolic  ideal  of  unity  presupposes  diversity. 
There  is  one  body  but  many  members.1  There  is  “one 
God  and  Father  of  all  . . . but  unto  each  one  . . . was  the 
grace  given  according  to  the  measure  of  the  gift  of 
Christ.”2  The  diversity  consisted  in  “gifts,”  “ministra- 
tions,” “workings”  which  are  “for  the  perfecting  of  the 
saints,”  for  “the  building  up  of  the  body  of  Christ.”* 

The  Church  was  in  danger  of  losing  its  unity  in  diver- 
sity either  through  uniformity  or  through  division. 
Against  these  Paul  warned  the  congregations.  Uni- 
formity is  death  to  unity  because  it  destroys  diversity. 

'Ephesians  4:4.  "Ephesians  4:6,7.  "Ephesians  4:11-16. 

207 


208 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


“And  if  they  were  all  one  member  where  were  the  body?”4 
Division  is  death  to  diversity  because  it  destroys  unity. 
“God  tempered  the  body  together,  giving  more  abundant 
honor  to  that  part  which  lacked ; that  there  should  be  no 
schism  in  the  body.”8 

Time  came  when  Christian  practice  did  not  match 
the  apostolic  ideal.  Some  in  their  zeal  for  unity  sup- 
pressed diversity  and  got  uniformity.  Others,  eager  to 
keep  diversity,  abandoned  unity  and  got  division.  Para- 
doxical as  it  may  seem,  uniformity  bred  division  and  divi- 
sion reenforced  uniformity.  Catholicism  and  sectarian- 
ism followed  in  the  wake  of  primitive  Christianity.  Thus 
the  body  of  Christ  was  divided. 

The  Christians  in  Corinth  were  rent  into  factions 
through  “jealousy  and  strife”  about  leadership  in  the 
congregation.  “One  of  you  saith,  I am  of  Paul ; and  I 
of  Apollos;  and  I of  Cephas;  and  I of  Christ.”11  Prefer- 
ence for  men  in  the  leadership  of  the  Church  has  been 
a divisive  force  from  that  day  to  this. 

A more  serious  and  far-reaching  division  arose  in 
reference  to  the  scope  and  the  way  of  salvation  which 
involved,  also,  the  person  and  the  work  of  the  Saviour. 
There  were  at  least  three  groups  or  parties:  (a)  The 
narrow  Jewish  Christians;  (b)  the  liberal  Jewish  Chris- 
tians; (c)  the  Pauline  Christians.  The  first  insisted  on 
the  necessity  of  law  and  Gospel  for  salvation.  “Except 
ye  be  circumcised  after  the  custom  of  Moses,  ye  cannot 
be  saved.”7  The  second  kept  the  law  and  the  Gospel  for 
the  circumcision,  the  Jews,  but  recognized  the  adequacy 
of  the  Gospel  alone  for  the  uncircumcision,  the  Gentiles. 
“When  they  perceived  the  grace  that  was  given  unto  me, 
James  and  Cephas  and  John,  they  who  were  reputed  to 
be  pillars,  gave  to  me  and  Barnabas  the  right  hands  of 
fellowship,  that  we  should  go  unto  the  Gentiles,  and  they 
unto  the  circumcision.”8  The  third,  led  by  Paul,  boldly 

*1.  Corinthians  12:19. *  *1.  Corinthians  12:24,25. 

*1.  Corinthians  1:12.  ’Acts  15:1.  “Galatians  2:9. 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  209 


proclaimed  the  sufficiency  of  grace  for  the  salvation  of 
Jew  and  Gentile,  without  the  works  of  the  law.  “We 
being  Jews  by  nature,  and  not  sinners  of  the  Gentiles, 
yet  knowing  that  a man  is  not  justified  by  the  works  of 
the  law,  but  only  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  even  we 
believed  on  Christ  Jesus,  that  we  might  be  justified  by 
faith  in  Christ,  and  not  by  the  works  of  the  law.’” 

These  divisions  came  out  of  different  answers  to  two 
fundamental  questions : What  must  I do  to  be  saved  ? 
and  What  think  ye  of  Christ?  The  different  answers 
resulted  in  corresponding  parties,  often  in  bitter  contro- 
versy with  one  another.  For  in  their  own  way,  in  the 
light  of  their  heritage  and  surroundings,  Christians  had 
to  turn  their  religious  experience  into  doctrines  and  work 
out  their  lives  through  organizations.  The  differences 
in  definitions  and  in  institutions  were  largely  determined 
by  such  varying  factors  as  the  genius  of  the  nation,  the 
character  of  civilization,  the  nature  of  political,  social, 
and  religious  ideas,  the  degrees  of  culture,  the  influence 
of  theological  and  ecclesiastical  leaders,  and  the  tempera- 
ments of  individuals  and  groups. 

Thus  the  same  Gospel  originally  proclaimed  in  Pales- 
tine, and  later  borne  to  Syria,  Egypt,  Greece,  Rome,  and 
North  Africa,  was  interpreted  not  only  in  different 
tongues  but  in  different  doctrines  and  wrought  out  in 
different  institutions.  And  the  same  factors  and  forces 
which  divided  the  Christians  in  the  beginning  have  con- 
tinued to  operate  in  various  lands  and  times  to  the  pres- 
ent day. 

In  the  second  century  an  attempt  was  made  to  adjust 
the  Gospel  to  the  religious  and  philosophical  ideas  of  the 
pagan  world — Syrian,  Greek,  and  Roman.  This  resulted 
in  a number  of  gnostic  sects,  each  with  a leader,  a doc- 
trine, and  an  association  of  its  own.  Notable  among 
them  were  the  Cerinthians,  the  Basilidians,  the  Saturnin- 
ians,  and  the  Valentinians.  The  simplicity  of  the  religion 

'Galatians  2 : 15,  16. 


210 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


of  Jesus  and  Paul  was  jeopardized  by  confusion  with 
the  myths,  mysteries,  laws,  and  philosophies  of  Baby- 
lonians and  Syrians,  Jews  and  Egyptians,  Greeks  and 
Romans. 

To  offset  gnosticism  and  to  preserve  the  purity  of  orig- 
inal Christianity,  Marcion  proposed  a restoration  of  the 
Pauline  doctrine  of  salvation  by  grace  alone.  But  he 
was,  in  other  respects,  too  much  like  the  gnostics  to  fur- 
nish an  antidote  to  counteract  the  disease.  Marcionism, 
however,  became  a distinct  sect  and  flourished  for  at  least 
a century. 

The  Phrygian  Montanus  led  a puritan  reaction  toward 
primitive  charismatic  Christianity  against  the  growing 
worldliness  of  the  Church,  and  raised  a democratic  pro- 
test against  the  assumptions  of  episcopal  authority.  In 
vain  did  he  attempt  to  revive  the  prophetic  gifts,  the  ad- 
vent hopes,  and  the  moral  purity  of  apostolic  days.  Mon- 
tanism  could  neither  cure  the  Church  of  gnosticism  nor 
save  it  from  Catholicism,  because  it  was  shot  through 
with  errors  in  doctrine  and  excesses  in  practice  and  ran 
counter  to  the  process  of  historical  development,  which 
could  be  stayed  neither  by  protest  nor  by  reaction. 

The  only  way  of  saving  Christianity  from  submergence 
under  the  flood  of  paganism  surging  without  and  from 
disintegration  through  heresy  and  schism  arising  within, 
was  by  a consolidation  of  the  Christian  congregations 
scattered  throughout  the  Roman  Empire  into  a single 
organization  with  tangible  standards  and  tests.  While 
gnostic,  Marcionite,  and  Montanist  appealed  to  apostolic 
tradition  in  vindication  of  their  views,  the  more  moderate 
congregations,  in  self-defense,  were  driven  to  define  the 
authoritative  norms  of  the  Church  of  the  apostles.  These 
were  the  Rule  of  Faith,  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  the  Episcopal  Office.  They  were  more  the 
product  of  the  common  will  than  of  the  conscious  volition 
of  separate  individuals.  Yet  towering  persons  were  not 
wanting  who  with  zeal  and  energy  labored  to  establish 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND 


211 


the  new  criteria  of  Catholicism — Polycarp  of  Smyrna 
(-j-156),  Justin  Martyr  (f  165),  Hegesippus  (visited 
Rome  160),  Dionysius  of  Corinth  (c.  170),  Irenaeus 
( J202) . The  rise  and  general  acceptance  of  the  three 
norms,  about  180  A.  D.,  marks  the  completion  of  the 
foundations  of  the  Catholic  Church.  It  claimed  to  be 
both  apostolic  and  orthodox,  the  divinely  authorized 
guardian  of  grace  and  truth. 

The  divisive  factors  and  forces  of  the  first  two  cen- 
turies of  Christianity  may  be  summarized  as  follows : 

1.  The  liberation  of  the  individual  and  the  group  by 
the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  from  bondage  to  the  prevailing 
legalism  in  religious  thought  and  practice. 

2.  The  rise  and  leadership  of  dominant  persons  who 
attracted  followers  into  competitive  and  hostile  parties. 

3.  Different  interpretations  of  the  way  of  salvation  and 
of  the  scope  of  work,  purpose,  and  person  of  the  Saviour. 

4.  Earnest  but  often  erroneous  attempts  to  adjust  the 
Gospel  to  the  religious  and  moral  ideas  of  the  nations, 
Jew  and  Gentile. 

5.  Persons  and  groups,  through  protest  and  reaction, 
seeking  to  save  original  Christianity  from  modification 
and  corruption. 

The  unitive  tendencies  during  the  same  period  were : 

1.  The  possession  of  a common  Spirit  including  one 
Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all 
who  is  over  all  and  through  all  and  in  all. 

2.  The  sense  of  fellowship  in  a common  life  and  pur- 
pose, sharing  in  the  work  of  faith,  in  labor  of  love,  and  in 
patience  of  hope.  “Between  the  congregations  there  was 
a constant  exchange  of  guests,  of  missionaries,  of  aids, 
of  counsels,  of  edification,  of  affectionate  control.”1' 

3.  The  growing  feeling  of  distinctness  from  Jew  and 
Gentile.  “Bound  together  into  a new  people  in  Jesus 
Christ,  their  head,  they  were  filled  with  the  high  con- 
sciousness that  Jews  and  Gentiles,  Greeks  and  Barbari- 


‘“Battifol,  “Primitive  Christianity,”  p.  32. 


212 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


ans  would  through  them  become  one,  and  that  the  last 
and  highest  stage  in  the  history  of  humanity  had  thus 
been  reached.”11 

4.  The  gradual  emergence,  from  the  rudimentary,  un- 
defined, and  unorganized  stage  of  primitive  Christianity, 
of  a legally  defined,  organized,  and  official  institution, 
with  divine  sanctions,  both  for  defense  against  sect  and 
schism  and  for  aggressive  advance  in  the  world. 

II.  The  Catholic  Period 

The  establishment  of  One  Holy  Catholic  Apostolic 
Church  made  it  easy  to  separate  “true”  from  “false” 
Christianity.  Heresy  and  schism  stood  out  in  bold  relief 
against  the  fixed  standards  of  the  Church.  While  Catholi- 
cism was  intended  to  suppress  diversity,  it  failed  to  main- 
tain unity.  For  strong-minded  men  dissented  to  the 
breaking  point  from  its  despotism  and  its  dogmatism. 
Sects  ran  parallel  with  Catholicism  from  the  Fathers  to 
the  Reformers.  They  gathered  strength  under  the  more 
rigorous  Hildebrandian  uniformity  until  the  protest  of 
the  sixteenth  century  divided  the  Church  of  the  West. 

As  in  the  apostolic,  so  in  the  Catholic  period,  the 
primary  cause  of  heresy  was  the  doctrine  of  the  person 
of  Christ  and  of  the  nature  of  the  Godhead,  vitally  re- 
lated to  the  conception  of  salvation.  Arianism  sprang 
up  in  the  Orient  from  Greek  soil.  It  was  controverted 
by  Athanasius  and  condemned  by  the  Council  of  Nicea. 
It  ended  in  a schism  which  ran  its  course  in  the  sixth 
century. 

The  Christological  heresies  grew  out  of  attempts  to 
define  the  relation  between  the  divine  and  the  human  in 
Jesus.  For  centuries  the  Church  was  shaken  and  shat- 
tered by  bitter  controversies  with  Eutychians,  Nestorians, 
Monothelites,  and  Monophysites.  Each  of  these  parties 
was  put  under  the  ban  by  Catholic  councils  which  raised 


“Harnack,  “What  Is  Christianity?”  p.  189. 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND 


213 


the  Creed  of  Nicea  and  of  Chalcedon  as  standards  of 
infallible  orthodoxy.  Two  of  the  heresies,  the  Nestorian 
and  the  Monophysite,  have  been  perpetuated  in  the  East 
as  separate  churches  to  the  present  time.  They  are  in  no 
closer  communion  with  the  Orthodox  Church  than  with 
the  Roman  Catholics  or  the  Protestants.  They  do  not 
even  recognize  one  another,  each  professing  to  be  the 
only  true  Church  of  Christ. 

The  schisms  from  the  third  to  the  sixth  century  came 
out  of  efforts  to  maintain  the  original  purity  of  the 
congregations  by  rigorous  discipline ; to  preserve  the 
primitive  democracy  of  the  believers  against  the  growing 
authority  of  the  bishops;  to  continue  the  leadership  of 
charismatic  persons  in  place  of  chosen  officers ; to  safe- 
guard the  holiness  of  the  Church,  jeopardized  by  an  easy 
restoration  of  those  who  were  guilty  of  mortal  sin  or 
who  betrayed  their  faith  under  persecution ; to  deny  the 
validity  of  sacramental  acts  performed  by  priests  or 
bishops  who  were  classed  as  apostates  or  lapsed.  Some 
of  the  leaders  of  the  more  notable  schisms  in  this  period 
were  Hippolytus,  Felicissimus,  Novatus,  Meletius,  and 
Donatus.  They  and  their  followers  were  either  brought 
back  into  the  Catholic  Church  or  ruthlessly  exiled,  im- 
prisoned, or  slain.  As  a rule,  in  the  course  of  a century 
after  their  origin  they  disappeared  from  history. 

The  division  of  Catholicism  into  Orthodox  and  Ro- 
man, commonly  known  as  Greek  Catholic  and  Roman 
Catholic,  was  most  far-reaching  in  its  effects  on  the  future 
history  of  Christianity.  The  breach  became  fixed  and 
final  in  the  eleventh  century  (1054),  but  was  in  process 
of  preparation  for  a thousand  years.  Among  the  divisive 
forces  were  personal  quarrels  between  the  patriarchs  of 
Rome  and  of  Constantinople  and  disagreement  on  a subtle 
point  in  the  definition  of  the  relation  of  the  three  persons 
in  the  Godhead ; but  the  ultimate  causes  were  far  deeper 
than  personal  ambition  or  doctrinal  distinctions.  Deep, 
internal,  slowly  moving,  gigantic  forces  operated  for 


214 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


centuries  and  worked  with  the  inevitability  of  fate.  We 
have  space  only  to  summarize  these  factors : 

a.  Difference  in  race  and  genius  of  Greeks  and  Ro- 
mans, Orientals  and  Occidentals.  They  dwelt  in  differ- 
ent lands,  developed  a different  spirit,  and  spoke  a differ- 
ent language.  Each  received  into  itself  different  alien 
elements.  The  Greeks  blended  with  Slav,  Syrian,  Egyp- 
tian, and  other  Eastern  nations.  The  Latins  mixed  with 
Celts,  Goths,  and  Teutons.  Withal  the  more  cultured 
Greek  harbored  an  age-long  scorn  for  the  more  barbar- 
ous Roman. 

b.  The  political  division  of  the  ancient  Roman  Empire 
into  an  Eastern  and  a Western  half.  This  naturally 
widened  the  breach  between  the  churches  of  each  division. 

c.  The  rivalry  between  the  patriarchs  of  Rome  and 
Constantinople,  each  claiming  supremacy  over  the 
Church  as  a whole. 

d.  The  acceptance  of  the  term  filioque  in  the  West 
and  its  rejection  in  the  East. 

e.  The  omission  of  rites  and  ceremonies  by  the  Roman 
Church  which  were  considered  essential  by  the  Greek 
Church.  In  an  encyclical  of  the  Patriarch  Photius  (866) 
the  errors  of  the  Romans  were  enumerated  as  follows: 
(i)  Saturday  fasting;  (2)  the  confirmation  of  the  bap- 
tized by  the  Bishop  only;  (3)  priestly  celibacy;  (4)  the 
filioque. 

In  1054  Pope  Leo  IX  and  the  Patriarch  Cerularius 
mutually  excommunicated  each  other.  The  papal  legates 
laid  upon  the  altar  of  St.  Sophia  a document  denouncing 
eleven  erroneous  doctrines  and  practices  of  the  Eastern 
Church  with  the  following  imprecation  upon  Cerularius 
and  his  followers : 

“Let  them  be  anathema  Maranatha,  with  Simoniacs, 
Valerians,  Arians,  Donatists,  Nicolaitans,  Severians, 
Pneumatomachi,  Manichees,  and  Nazarenes,  and  with 
all  heretics;  yea,  with  the  devil  and  his  angels.  Amen, 
Amen,  Amen.” 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  215 


It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  schism  between  the  East 
and  the  West  was  now  consummated. 

In  vain  have  been  the  attempts  to  reunite  the  two 
churches.  Under  the  stress  of  political  necessity,  when 
the  Eastern  Empire  was  hard-pressed  by  the  Turks,  a 
conciliatory  spirit  was  shown  by  the  East.  Representa- 
tives of  the  two  churches  met  in  the  Council  of  Lyons 
(1274)  and  in  the  second  Council  of  Florence  (1439). 
Although  each  council  adopted  a concordat,  the  actual 
union  was  defeated  because  there  was  no  change  of  heart 
in  either  church  and  political  necessity  alone  was  not 
sufficient  to  drive  men  into  ecclesiastical  union. 

Even  Protestants  have  made  advances  to  the  Orthodox 
Church  in  the  hope  of  cultivating  friendly  relations,  if 
not  of  attaining  organic  or  federal  union.  Among  these 
efforts  the  most  noteworthy  were  (a)  the  correspondence 
of  theologians  of  Tubingen  (1576)  with  the  ecumenical 
Patriarch  Jeremias  II ; (b)  the  letters  exchanged  between 
Cyrill  Lucar,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  (1602),  and  Arch- 
bishop Laud;  (c)  the  English  Non-Jurors  in  open  cor- 
respondence with  the  Eastern  Patriarch  through  Peter 
the  Great  (1717).  But  all  of  these  approaches  proved 
abortive.  The  Old  Catholics,  who  seceded  from  Rome 
after  the  Vatican  Council  (1870),  held  two  conferences 
at  Bonn  (1874  and  1875)  in  which  representatives  of  the 
Old  Catholic,  the  Anglicans,  the  Orthodox  Catholics  of 
the  East,  the  Lutherans,  and  the  Reformed  were  pres- 
ent. The  purpose,  in  the  words  of  Dollinger,  was  “to 
find  out  to  what  extent  there  could  be  a friendly  and 
peaceful  approach  and  a mutual  recognition  between 
them ; and  how  differences  in  doctrine  and  practice  might 
be  reconciled  by  interpretation  and  by  concessions.”  The 
conferences,  however,  were  fruitless. 

In  the  West  the  Medieval  Catholic  Church,  notwith- 
standing the  rise  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  could 
not  suppress  dissent  and  schism.  In  the  second  half  of 
the  eleventh  century  heretical  movements  appeared  in 


2l6 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Milan,  Orleans,  Strassburg,  and  Cologne.  These  grew 
in  power  in  the  twelfth  century  and  spread  so  widely  that 
the  Church  turned  to  measures  of  forcible  suppression. 

An  intolerant  and  colorless  uniformity  was  bound  to 
provoke  protest  and  to  breed  division.  The  people  them- 
selves became  dissatisfied  with  the  barren  formalism,  the 
arrogant  tyranny,  and  the  flagrant  immorality  of  prel- 
ates, priests,  and  monks.  Their  hearts  longed  for  the 
simplicity  of  the  Gospel  and  the  purity  of  the  apostolic 
life.  They  cried  out  for  the  living  God  and  were  weary 
of  ordinances  and  ceremonies.  They  nurtured  their  souls 
with  the  Bible,  to  which  at  least  some  of  the  more  intel- 
ligent laymen  began  to  have  access.  The  thriving  bur- 
gers, prosperous  and  successful  merchants,  and  bankers 
developed  a spirit  of  independence  which  could  not  be 
held  in  check  by  ecclesiastical  canons.  The  more  lively 
intercourse  between  men  and  nations  of  the  East  and  the 
West,  brought  about  by  the  Crusades  and  by  commerce, 
quickened  the  minds  of  men  and  inspired  courage  to  pro- 
test against  an  order  of  life  which  ignored  the  right  of 
the  individual  and  demanded  unconditional  surrender  to 
authority.  These  conditions  and  tendencies  prepared  the 
way  for  the  medieval  sects,  some  of  which  were  the  pre- 
cursors of  the  Reformation. 

The  most  prominent  among  them  were  the  Albigenses 
and  the  Waldenses  in  the  twelfth  century  and  the  Wyclif- 
ites  and  Hussites  in  the  fourteenth  century.  We  must 
not  forget,  however,  that  there  are  extant  lists  of  as 
many  as  nineteen,  seventy-two,  and  even  one  hundred  and 
thirty  heresies  in  this  period.  The  Church  dealt  harshly 
with  them  and  used  fire  and  sword  to  destroy  them.  The 
Waldensians  are  still  to  be  found  in  Italy  and  the  Mora- 
vians trace  their  lineage  to  the  Hussites  of  Bohemia. 

When  we  survey  the  first  fifteen  centuries  of  Chris- 
tianity we  see  clearly  that  church  unity  was  an  ideal 
which  was  never  actualized.  The  theory  of  unity  in 
diversity  in  the  New  Testament  never  became  a fact. 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  217 


In  the  first  five  centuries  ancient  Catholicism  was  in 
control  of  the  field,  but  there  were  vast  multitudes 
who  called  themselves  Christians  that  disputed  the 
claims  of  the  dominant  church,  and  dwelt  apart  in 
conventicles  of  their  own.  In  the  Middle  Ages 
Catholicism  itself  was  divided  into  two  sections,  each 
about  equal  in  geographical  extent  and  numerical 
strength.  In  the  territory  of  each  section  there  were 
separate  churches  which  refused  to  recognize  the  claims 
of  Greek  or  of  Roman  Catholicism.  The  popular  view, 
therefore,  that  before  the  Reformation  all  Christians 
were  united  in  one  holy  Catholic  Church  is  a fiction  that 
cannot  be  sustained  by  historical  facts.  Church  unity 
is  a hope  to  be  fulfilled  in  the  future,  not  an  achievement 
that  has  been  lost  in  the  past. 

III.  The  Protestant  Period 

The  Reformation  freed  the  individual  and  the  group 
from  the  age-long  domination  of  Roman  Catholicism. 
The  newly  acquired  right  of  private  judgment  and  the 
exclusive  authority  of  the  Scriptures  in  faith  and  prac- 
tice lent  themselves  to  interpretations  of  the  Gospel 
differing  so  widely  that  numerous  divisions  were  in- 
evitable. 

The  original  Reformers,  Luther  and  Zwingli,  agreed 
in  their  protests  against  Rome,  but  they  differed  in  their 
affirmations  on  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  result  was  a division  of  Protestantism  on  the  Con- 
tinent into  two  branches  — the  Lutheran  and  the  Re- 
formed. Men  of  radical  views  followed  in  the  wake  of 
the  conservative  reformers  and  insisted  on  a reformation 
of  the  Reformation,  a more  thorough-going  reconstruc- 
tion of  the  Church  than  either  Luther  or  Zwingli  desired. 
Thus  there  were  three  types  of  reform  on  the  Continent 
— the  Lutheran,  the  Reformed,  and  the  Radicals,  includ- 
ing the  Anabaptists,  the  Socinians,  and  the  Mystics.  Two 
churches  of  the  radical  sort  were  organized  and  exist 


2l8 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


today — the  Mennonites  and  the  Schwenkfelders.  The 
Socinians  were  the  forerunners  of  the  Unitarians,  and 
the  Anabaptists,  as  the  name  implies,  of  the  Baptists. 

On  the  Continent  three  churches  were  “by  law  estab- 
lished,” the  Lutheran,  the  Reformed,  and  the  Roman 
Catholic.  The  other  churches  were  considered  dissent- 
ing sects  which  were  tolerated  or,  if  the  civil  authorities 
were  so  disposed,  were  liable  to  be  harassed  to  the  point 
of  exile  or  death. 

The  English  Reformation  had  a character  of  its  own. 
The  churches  that  came  out  of  it  were  the  Episcopal, 
the  Presbyterian,  the  Congregational,  the  Baptist,  and 
the  Quakers.  Episcopacy  became  the  Church  of  England, 
Catholics  and  Puritans  were  classed  as  dissenters.  They 
frequently  suffered  the  civil  penalties  of  nonconformity. 
Only  after  more  than  a century  of  conflict,  including  civil 
war,  was  legal  toleration  granted  (1688)  to  the  Presby- 
terians, the  Congregationalists,  the  Baptists,  and  the 
Quakers.  In  the  eighteenth  century  the  rise  and  spread 
of  Pietism  in  Germany  and  of  Evangelicalism  in  Britain 
resulted  in  the  organization  of  the  Moravians  and  the 
Methodists.  Both  churches  were  active  in  missionary 
work  and  since  1840  have  played  an  important  role  in 
American  Christianity. 

The  divisive  forces  in  Protestantism  may  be  sum- 
marized as  follows : Differences  in  nationality,  in  the 
genius  and  temper  of  the  Reformers,  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Gospel  depending  upon  religious  experience, 
education,  and  social  condition,  in  theological  formulas 
and  church  polities  wrought  out  in  the  heat  of  contro- 
versy, in  the  attitude  toward  the  historic  Church,  the 
authority  of  its  doctrines  and  ordinances,  one  class  seek- 
ing merely  reform  of  the  old  Church,  the  other  demanding 
a new  Church  beginning  with  re-baptism  or  with  a cove- 
nant, and  conforming  in  everything  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Add  to  these  forces  the  privilege  of  every  believer 
to  read  and  interpret  the  Bible  for  himself  and  the  irre- 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  219 


pressible  conviction  that  loyalty  to  the  truth  could  be 
maintained  in  many  instances  only  by  separation  from 
the  existing  church  and  by  the  organization  of  an  inde- 
pendent sect. 

The  sects  in  Europe  were  bodies  of  Christians  not 
“by  law  established.”  They  differed  in  form  and  spirit 
from  the  state  churches.  They  were  essentially  biblical 
and  individualistic.  Their  biblicity  appeared  in  the  strict 
conformity  of  life  to  the  letter  of  the  Scriptures,  their 
antipathy  to  historical  creeds,  and  their  stubborn  disa- 
vowal of  compromise  with  the  world.  In  daily  living, 
in  their  relation  to  the  State,  society,  riches,  pleasures, 
and  to  one  another,  the  sects  were  controlled  by  the  pre- 
cepts of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  by  the  communism  of 
the  Acts,  by  the  freedom. of  the  spirit  taught  by  Paul,  and 
by  the  advent  hopes  and  other-worldliness  of  the  early 
Christians.  They  rejected  with  more  or  less  consistency 
whatever  was  not  commanded  in  the  Bible  and  felt  more 
keenly  than  the  conservative  Reformers  the  difference 
between  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world.  To  be  at  peace  with  the  world  was  to  be  at  war 
with  God.  Their  individualism  was  evident  in  their  claim 
to  immediate  personal  illumination  of  the  Spirit,  in  the 
layman’s  right  to  interpret  the  Scriptures,  in  the  opposi- 
tion to  official  and  confessional  control  of  thought  and 
action,  and  in  the  persistent  demand  for  holiness  of  per- 
son and  life  instead  of  holiness  of  institution  and  sac- 
rament. 

The  nobler  spirits  of  the  age  deplored  sect  and  schism 
as  both  unprofitable  and  unchristian.  The  gains  of 
Protestantism  were  not  without  serious  losses.  For 
diversity  and  freedom  men  paid  the  price  of  sectarian 
warfare.  Catholic  against  Evangelical,  Lutheran  against 
Calvinist,  Anglican  against  Puritan,  conformist  against 
dissenter.  For  deliverance  from  paralyzing  Catholic  uni- 
formity, men  paid  the  price  of  the  loss  of  collective  action 
and  cooperation.  For  freedom  from  external  authority, 


220 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


from  the  grip  of  the  dead  hand,  they  paid  the  price  of  the 
excesses  and  follies  of  private  judgment  running  into 
autocracy  or  anarchy.  Attempts  were  made  in  the  first 
decades  of  the  Reformation  to  heal  the  schism  in  the 
Church  before  it  became  hopelessly  fixed. 

The  Diet  of  Augsburg  (1530)  was  called  in  the  hope 
of  “restoring  the  unity  of  the  holy  empire  of  the  German 
nation  in  the  one  true  Christian  religion  and  church.” 
Melancthon  wrote  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  terms 
so  irenical  that  the  Catholics  were  surprised  at  its  mod- 
eration. The  doctrinal  articles  close  with  the  follow- 
ing declaration : “This  is  the  sum  of  doctrine  among  us, 
in  which  can  be  seen  nothing  which  is  discrepant  with 
Scripture,  nor  with  Catholic,  or  even  with  the  Roman 
Church,  so  far  as  that  Church  is  known  from  the  writ- 
ings of  the  Fathers.”  Melancthon  and  the  Lutherans, 
however,  learned  to  their  sorrow  that  the  Catholics  would 
grant  no  concession  and  would  listen  to  nothing  but  abso- 
lute submission.  The  Augsburg  Confession  became  the 
doctrinal  standard  of  the  Lutherans  and  served  to  fix 
definitely  and  finally  the  breach  between  Catholics  and 
Protestants. 

In  1541  a colloquy  of  Catholics  and  Protestants  was 
held  at  Regensburg  at  the  instance  of  the  Emperor.  The 
papal  legate  Contarini  was  in  a conciliatory  mood  and 
Melancthon,  as  always,  was  ready  to  make  concessions. 
They  prepared  the  Interim  of  Regensburg  as  a basis  of 
reconciliation.  But  Luther’s  inflexible  attitude  and  the 
negative  vote  of  the  Diet  of  Regensburg  in  1546  defeated 
it.  Equally  fruitless  were  the  Interims  of  Augsburg  and 
Leipzig  in  1548.  The  concessions  made  by  Melancthon 
in  the  latter  in  regard  to  Catholic  ritual,  polity,  and  doc- 
trine failed  to  conciliate  the  Catholics  and  precipitated 
the  adiaphoristic  and  synergistic  controversies  among  the 
Lutherans. 

The  Queen  Regent  of  France,  Catharine  de  Medici, 
recommended  to  the  Pope  (1561)  that  he  effect  a recon- 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  221 


ciliation  between  Catholics  and  Protestants  by  correct- 
ing abuses  and  simplifying  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  A similar  proposition  was  laid  before  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  by  the  Emperor  Ferdinand.  Though  neither 
Pope  nor  council  took  any  cognizance  of  these  proposals, 
three  Catholic  theologians,  Frederick  Staphylus,  George 
Wicel,  and  George  Cassander,  drew  up  a comprehensive 
statement  in  order  to  bring  about  the  desired  union,  at 
least  in  lands  ruled  by  the  Emperor.  The  latter’s  death 
in  1564  ended  further  negotiations.  The  propositions  of 
Cassander  and  his  colleagues  are  considered  especially 
noteworthy  because  they  propose  union  between  Catho- 
lics and  Protestants  by  a return  to  the  original  simplicity 
of  the  New  Testament. 

The  codification  of  Catholic  doctrine  and  law  in  the 
Council  of  Trent  necessarily  ended  further  efforts  at 
union  with  the  Protestants.  All  colloquies  held  or  pro- 
posals made  after  this  were  merely  unsuccessful  attempts 
to  convince  Protestants  of  the  error  of  their  ways  and 
to  lure  them  back  into  the  Catholic  fold. 

Conferences  of  this  sort  were  held  in  Germany  at 
Baden  in  1589,  at  Emmendingen  in  1590,  and  at  Regens- 
burg in  1601;  in  France  at  Nimes  in  1599  and  at  Fon- 
tainebleau in  1600.  Bishop  Spinola  (c.  1676)  tried  to 
win  the  Lutherans  for  Rome.  Correspondence  for  the 
same  purpose  was  conducted  between  Bossuet  and  Leib- 
nitz (1699-1701).  Archbishop  Wake  of  Canterbury  and 
certain  Gallican  theologians  (from  1716),  also,  exchanged 
letters,  prompted  by  the  desire  of  the  Gallicans  to  enlist 
the  support  of  the  English  Church,  through  its  return  to 
the  Roman,  in  their  defense  of  national  liberties.  But 
the  Archbishop  refused  to  lend  himself  to  their  proposal. 

The  Reformers  felt  as  keenly  the  losses  incurred 
through  the  divisions  in  Protestantism  as  the  disadvan- 
tages of  separation  from  Catholicism.  For  schism  begot 
intolerance,  hatred,  and  persecution.  It  brought  reproach 
upon  the  evangelical  cause  and  weakened  its  forces  both 


222 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


for  defense  and  attack.  Calvin  in  his  reply  to  Cranmer 
(1552)  described  the  situation  in  general  when  he  wrote: 
“But  this  also  is  to  be  reckoned  among  the  greatest  evils 
of  our  time,  that  the  churches  are  so  estranged  from  each 
other  that  scarcely  the  common  intercourse  of  society  has 
place  among  them;  much  less  that  holy  communion  of  the 
members  of  Christ  which  all  persons  profess  with  their 
lips,  though  few  sincerely  honor  it  in  their  practice.” 

The  first  effort  at  union,  or  at  preventing  division,  be- 
tween the  Protestants  was  made  by  Philip  of  Hesse.  He 
was  moved  as  much  by  political  as  by  religious  reasons. 
For,  as  a statesman,  he  felt  the  necessity  of  a united 
Protestantism  both  to  maintain  its  ground  against  the 
secret  and  open  attacks  of  Romanism  and  to  gain  new 
territory.  He  invited  Luther  and  Zwingli  to  a colloquy 
at  Marburg  in  1529.  The  failure  of  the  Reformers  to 
come  to  an  agreement  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord’s  Sup- 
per is  too  well  known  to  need  more  than  mention.  When 
they  left  Marburg,  each  going  his  own  way,  the  division 
of  the  Evangelicals  into  two  churches  was  an  inevitable 
consequence. 

The  Wittenberg  Concord,  effected  through  the  media- 
tion of  Martin  Bucer  in  1536,  seemed  for  the  time  to  have 
satisfied  the  Swiss  and  the  Germans.  But  it  proved  only 
a temporary  armistice,  which  was  made  void  by  the 
rigid  attitude  of  Luther  and  his  associates  at  Witten- 
berg. After  Luther’s  death  (1546)  the  irenic  Melancthon 
became  leader  of  a movement  which  is  known  as  Phil- 
ippism.  It  was  a well-meant  effort  to  unite  the  Luther- 
ans and  Calvinists  by  modifying  the  article  in  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  on  the  Lord’s  Supper,  so  as  to  enable 
Calvin  himself  to  sign  it  in  its  modified  form.  The  Phil- 
ippists,  however,  aroused  the  ire  of  the  rigorous  Luther- 
ans and  were  considered  traitors  to  their  cause.  The  ripe 
fruit  of  the  Melancthonian,  Zwinglian,  and  Calvinistic 
tendencies  was  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  a blend  of  the 
three  and  a means  of  uniting  the  diverse  and  belligerent 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND 


223 


Protestant  groups  in  the  Palatinate.  The  Catechism, 
with  its  irenic  spirit,  became  both  the  book  of  instruction 
and  the  confession  of  faith  of  the  German  Reformed 
Church. 

Under  the  influence  of  the  Philippism  of  Wittenberg, 
the  Polish  Lutherans  entered  into  union  with  the  Re- 
formed and  the  Moravians  at  Sendomir  in  1570.  But 
after  the  ultra-Lutheran  party  in  Germany  came  into 
control,  through  the  general  adoption  of  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  the  Polish  union  was  dissolved  by  instigation 
from  German  sources. 

At  the  opening  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  Melanc- 
thonian  spirit  revived  in  Calixtus,  a professor  at  Helm- 
stadt  (1614).  While  he  professed  to  be  a loyal  Lutheran, 
he  none  the  less  believed  that  the  doctrines  necessary  for 
salvation  were  found  in  all  the  churches,  Catholic  and 
Protestant.  He  concluded  that  essentials  were  sum- 
marized in  the  Apostles’  Creed  and  proposed  it  as  a basis 
of  union  for  all  churches.  His  liberality  found  no  favor 
with  the  Lutheran  dogmaticians.  Instead  of  working 
peace  and  harmony,  he  provoked  discord  and  strife. 

In  1630  Rupertus  Meldenius,  a German  Lutheran  the- 
ologian, published  a book  on  the  peace  of  the  church. 
It  has  become  historical  for  no  other  reason  than  that 
it  contains  the  sentence  now  universally  quoted  by  ec- 
clesiastical pacificators : “In  necessary  things  unity,  in 
unnecessary  things  liberty,  in  all  things  love.”  ( In  nec- 
essariis  unitas,  in  non  necessariis  libertas,  in  omnibus 
caritas. ) 

About  this  time  the  King  of  Poland  invited  Catholic 
and  Protestant  divines  to  meet  in  friendly  conference  at 
Thqrn  (1645),  in  the  hope  that  mutual  acquaintance 
would  mitigate  differences  and  promote  agreement.  Rep- 
resentatives of  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  accepted  the 
royal  invitation.  The  latter  proposed  to  the  former  that, 
in  the  presence  of  a common  foe,  each  should  sink  his 
differences  and  unite  in  one  communion.  But  the  Lu- 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


004 

therans  could  not  be  induced  to  listen  even  to  a temporary 
truce.  At  the  request  of  the  Great  Elector,  William  of 
Brandenburg,  Calixtus  appeared  in  the  conference,  but 
the  Lutherans  repudiated  him  and  he  was  driven  to  join 
the  Reformed. 

The  last  and  the  most  successful  effort  at  church  union 
in  Germany  was  the  constitution  of  the  United  Evangeli- 
cal Church  of  Prussia  by  Frederick  William  III  in  1817, 
on  the  three-hundredth  anniversary  of  the  Reformation. 
The  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed  united  in  one  body  in 
Prussia  and  in  other  German  provinces.  But  there  was 
a dissenting  remnant  of  both  confessions  which  refused 
to  enter  the  union  and  continued  independent  organi- 
zations. 

The  union  movements  in  Germany  were  paralleled  in 
one  form  or  another  in  other  lands.  Zwingli  of  Zurich 
was  not  disposed  to  permit  doctrinal  differences  to  inter- 
fere with  the  fellowship  of  believers.  His  hand,  ex- 
tended to  Luther  at  Marburg,  symbolized  his  attitude  and 
that  of  the  Reformed  Churches  toward  other  commun- 
ions. They  assumed  that  in  things  essential  the  Luther- 
ans and  the  Reformed  were  sufficiently  agreed  to  permit 
mutual  tolerance  and  to  make  common  cause  against  the 
Catholics.  This  relation  Zwingli  was  the  first  to  desig- 
nate as  “Syncretism.”  The  Lutherans,  however,  were 
repelled  by  the  Zwinglian  hand  and  were  disposed  to 
consider  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformed  Church  as  an 
obstacle  rather  than  a help  to  salvation,  a disposition 
which  was  nurtured  and  strengthened  by  the  victory  of 
the  Formula  of  Concord  and  conservative  Lutheranism. 

In  the  first  generation  of  the  Reformation  the  Swiss 
were  divided  into  Zwinglians  and  Calvinists.  Their  dif- 
ferences were  reconciled  in  the  Consensus  Tigurinus  of 
1549,  in  which  Calvin  of  Geneva  and  Bullinger  of  Zurich 
came  to  agreement  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord’s  Supper. 
While  not  all  of  the  Reformed  cantons,  as  for  example 
Berne,  accepted  the  formula,  the  Consensus  was  hailed  as 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  225 

a victory  for  union  by  Bucer,  Lasco,  and  other  evangeli- 
cal leaders. 

In  the  seventeenth  century  John  Henry  Heidegger 
(b.  1633),  a Swiss  theologian,  showed  marked  tolerance 
toward  the  Lutherans  and  with  fervent  enthusiasm 
worked  for  the  union  of  the  two  churches.  In  the  same 
spirit  Samuel  Werenfels  (1675-1740),  professor  of  theol- 
ogy at  Basle,  advocated  the  union  of  Protestants  and,  if 
possible,  the  reunion  of  Catholics  and  Protestants.  In  his 
preaching  he  put  all  the  emphasis  on  those  truths  of  the 
Gospel  upon  which  Christians  of  all  ages  were  agreed 
and  which  served  to  edify  and  comfort  men  in  daily  life. 
He  deprecated  theological  controversy  because  it  spread 
the  spirit  of  bitterness  among  Christians  and  usually 
ended  in  strife  and  division.  Others  of  the  same  type  in 
Switzerland  were  Friederich  Osterwald  of  Neuenberg 
(1633-1747)  and  Alphons  Turretin  (1671-1737). 

The  Protestants  in  France  were  comparatively  few  in 
number,  and  yet  they  played  no  small  role  in  the  history 
of  evangelical  Christianity.  They,  through  the  influence 
of  Calvin  and  Geneva,  were  prevailingly  Reformed  but 
always  made  friendly  advances  toward  the  Lutherans. 
The  National  Synod  at  Gap  (1603)  expressed  the  desire 
for  a conference  on  church  union  between  the  churches 
of  all  lands  and  resolved  to  write,  with  this  end  in  view, 
to  the  orthodox  universities  in  Germany,  England,  Scot- 
land, and  Geneva.  They  received  approving  replies,  but 
there  the  matter  ended.  The  Synod  of  Tonneins,  1614, 
proposed  a new  plan  of  union,  which  the  Synod  of  Vitre, 
1617,  undertook  to  perfect  through  a commission.  The 
outbreak  of  the  Arminian  controversy  brought  this  effort 
to  an  end. 

An  historic  letter  in  the  cause  of  union  came  from 
Archbishop  Cranmer,  dated  March  20,  1552,  and  ad- 
dressed to  John  Calvin  of  Geneva.  He  urged  Calvin, 
Melancthon,  and  Bullinger  “to  deliberate  among  your- 
selves as  to  the  means  by  which  this  synod  can  be  assem- 


226 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


bled  with  the  greatest  convenience.”  The  purpose  of  the 
synod  was  for  “learned  and  godly  men”  to  come  to  agree- 
ment on  the  doctrines  of  Christianity.  Calvin,  in  his 
reply  to  Cranmer,  expressed  hearty  sympathy  with  his 
proposal,  saying:  “As  far  as  I am  concerned  if  I can  be 
of  any  service,  I shall  not  shrink  from  crossing  ten  seas, 
if  need  be,  for  that  object.”  Cranmer’s  project,  how- 
ever, never  reached  beyond  the  stage  of  a devout  wish 
and  an  interesting  exchange  of  letters  between  the  Prot- 
estant Fathers. 

In  the  following  century  the  Englishman  John  Dave- 
nentius  (1642)  pleaded  “for  a restoration  of  fraternal 
communion  between  evangelical  churches,  based  on  the 
fact  that  they  do  not  differ  on  any  fundamental  article 
of  the  Catholic  faith.”  Another  prophet  of  church  union 
came  from  Scotland  and  preached  in  the  English  church 
at  Elbingen,  Germany.  He  was  John  Dury  (Duraeus), 
a Scotch  Presbyterian  minister.  Through  his  personal 
experience  and  studies  he  concluded  that  the  differences 
between  the  churches  were  not  of  primary  significance 
and  that  Christian  fellowship  is  not  to  be  based  on  the- 
ological doctrines,  but  on  worship  and  life  in  spirit  and 
in  truth.  In  all  churches  he  recognized  worthy  and  un- 
worthy members.  For  fifty  years  he  traveled  over  the 
Continent,  exhorting  men  to  think  more  of  their  common 
faith  in  Christ  than  of  their  differences  in  opinion.  He 
wrote  letters  and  books  and  held  conferences  with  many 
leaders  of  the  churches,  but  the  death  of  his  chief  patron, 
Gustavus  Adolphus,  cut  short  further  developments.  He 
wrote  with  a touch  of  sadness  before  he  died  at  Cassel 
( 1680)  : “The  only  fruit  which  I have  reaped  from  all 
my  toils  is  that  I see  the  miserable  condition  of  Chris- 
tianity and  that  I have  no  other  comfort  than  the  testi- 
mony of  my  conscience.” 

Among  the  witnesses  to  the  same  cause  by  word  and 
pen  in  England  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  cen- 
turies were  Richard  Baxter,  John  Milton,  Jeremy  Taylor, 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  227 


Edward  Stillingfleet,  John  Owen,  William  Chillingworth, 
and  Robert  Hall.  As  there  were  reformers  before  the 
Reformation,  so  these  men  may  have  been  unionists  be- 
fore the  union. 

The  Pietist,  in  shifting  emphasis  from  dogma  to  the 
experience  of  conversion  and  union  with  Christ  through 
faith,  furnished  a new  basis  for  the  fellowship  of  Chris- 
tians. Zinzendorf  put  into  practice  the  precepts  of 
Spener.  Three  families  from  Moravia  led  by  Christian 
David  (1722),  were  given  asylum  on  the  Count’s  estates 
near  Berthelsdorf.  Here  men  of  various  creeds  settled 
and  called  the  hill  upon  which  they  located  Herrnhut. 
In  1727  Zinzendorf  succeeded  in  inducing  Moravians, 
Lutherans,  and  Reformed  to  unite  in  the  Lord’s  Supper, 
notwithstanding  their  doctrinal  differences.  The  ground 
of  fellowship  was  living  union  with  the  Saviour  and  con- 
secration to  His  word.  The  new  community  was  appro- 
priately called  Unitas  fratrum,  the  unity  of  brethren;  and 
its  influence  for  the  closer  relation  of  churches  has  been 
felt  throughout  the  world. 

IV.  Bearing  on  the  Present  Situation 

From  this  rapid  survey  of  the  history  of  church  union 
since  the  Reformation  certain  inferences  as  to  motives 
and  methods  may  safely  be  made. 

The  motives  for  union  were:  (1)  The  securing  of 
the  unity  of  the  Church;  (2)  defense  against  Roman 
Catholicism  and  against  rationalism;  (3)  the  mainte- 
nance of  religious  uniformity  in  the  interest  of  civil  and 
political  peace  in  European  states;  (4)  the  furthering  of 
harmony  and  brotherhood  among  Christians  of  different 
persuasions. 

Appeals  for  the  union  of  churches  to  hasten  the  evan- 
gelization of  the  world  or  to  avoid  the  waste  of  men  and 
money  through  the  overlapping  of  denominational  work 
are  not  heard  before  the  latter  part  of  the  nineteenth 
century. 


228 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


The  various  methods  for  effecting  union  were:  (i) 
The  calling  of  a council  of  representatives  of  the  churches 
to  come  to  an  agreement  on  a common  doctrinal  basis; 
(2)  the  action  of  the  civil  authority,  prince,  king,  or  par- 
liament, ordering  a union  of  different  Christian  groups 
in  a province;  (3)  differentiating  the  essentials  from 
the  non-essentials  and  stressing  the  things  held  in  com- 
mon by  all  rather  than  the  things  that  are  distinctive  of 
each;  (4)  shifting  emphasis  from  dogma  and  institution 
as  tests  of  fellowship  to  religious  experience,  the  experi- 
ence of  conversion,  and  of  union  with  Christ;  (5)  tolera- 
tion rooted  in  religious  indifference  which  considered  all 
churches  equally  good  and  equally  bad.  This  was  the 
way  of  many  of  the  rationalists.  Frederick  the  Great 
held  that  each  one  should  have  the  privilege  of  going 
to  heaven  in  his  own  way. 

Specific  kinds  of  closer  relation  between  the  churches 
such  as  alliance,  council,  federation  were  not  considered 
before  the  second  half  of  the  last  century.  Only  corpor- 
ate union  was  then  thought  of.  Nor  was  the  dissenting 
sect  recognized  in  councils  and  colloquies  in  the  interest 
of  church  union. 

This  general  view  of  the  history  of  the  Church  makes 
it  clear  that  there  has  been  a gradual  change  of  attitude 
from  hostile  competition  to  friendly  recognition,  from 
sectarian  intolerance  to  denominational  alliance  or  fed- 
eration. 

It  would  also  seem  clear  that  so  long  as  rigidly  inter- 
preted dogmas  and  unchanging  institutions  are  the  chief 
criteria  of  the  true  Church  and  the  test  of  fellowship,  the 
divisions  of  Catholicism  and  of  Protestantism  must  con- 
tinue. For  no  church,  accepting  these  premises,  can  con- 
sistently enter  upon  negotiations  for  union  save  for  the 
purpose  of  converting  the  other  churches  to  its  specific 
faith  and  order.  But  a conception  of  Christianity  which 
regards  it  as  primarily  a new  life  in  men,  begotten  by  the 
Spirit  of  Christ  through  His  Word  and  His  Church,  rec- 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  . 229 

ognizes  the  validity  of  the  varying  forms  of  Christian 
experience  in  which  the  one  Spirit  finds  expression. 

This  new  life  will  naturally  be  embodied  in  intellectual, 
moral,  political,  and  social  forms,  which  will  vary  in 
different  ages  and  lands  and  groups.  While  there  is 
unity  of  spirit  and  life,  there  must  also  be  diversity  of 
form  and  operation.  Religious  experience  will  differ 
as  the  Oriental  mind  differs  from  the  Occidental,  the 
Jewish  from  the  Greek,  the  Latin  from  the  Teutonic, 
the  ancient  from  the  modern.  The  modes  of  worship  will 
vary  as  much  as  the  degrees  of  culture  and  the  tempera- 
ments of  groups.  Church  polity  may  be  episcopal  or 
congregational  and  yet  each  is  jure  divino,  providing  it 
serves  to  establish  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  men  and  in 
nations. 

The  forms  of  Christianity  not  only  differ  but  they  are 
subject  to  change — the  change  which  all  organisms  un- 
dergo in  the  process  of  growth  and  in  adjustment  to 
their  surroundings.  Divisions  and  sects  that  at  one  stage 
were  an  historical  necessity  may  thus  be  outgrown.  By 
historical  development,  then,  we  may  realize  the  unity  in 
diversity  which  other  days  have  seen  in  vision  but  never 
reached  in  fact.  Catholic  uniformity  will  pass  away  and 
Christian  unity  will  take  its  place.  Protestant  divisions 
will  be  abolished  and  Christian  diversity  come  instead. 
There  will  be  one  body  with  many  members,  unity  of 
spirit  with  diversity  of  operations. 


CHAPTER  VII 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  DENOMINA- 
TIONS IN  AMERICAN  CHRISTIANITY 

When  the  territory  of  the  United  States  was  occupied 
in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  by  pioneers  of 
different  nations  and  denominations  of  Europe,  the 
church,  or  churches,  of  each  country  followed  its  flag. 
The  seafaring  and  colonizing  powers  then  were  Spain 
and  France,  Roman  Catholic  lands;  England,  Holland, 
and  Sweden,  Protestant  lands. 

The  southern  border  of  the  United  States  was  traversed 
and  settled  by  the  Spaniards,  whose  towns  and  missions 
under  the  oversight  of  Franciscan  monks  extended  from 
Florida  to  California.  In  the  seventeenth  century  there 
were  fifty  missions  in  ninety  pueblo  towns  of  New  Mex- 
ico and  Arizona  alone. 

The  French  explorers  and  missionaries  of  the  Jesuit 
Order  established  trading  posts  and  missions  from  the 
Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  by  way  of 
the  St.  Lawrence  River,  the  Great  Lakes,  and  the  Mis- 
sissippi River.  French  statesmen  dreamed  dreams  and 
saw  visions  of  a colossal  empire  in  the  West.  Mr.  Ban- 
croft reminds  us  that  if  by  1750  the  continent  had  been 
divided  into  twenty-five  equal  parts,  the  French  would 
have  claimed  twenty,  the  Spaniards  four,  and  the  Eng- 
lish one.  About  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  a 
prophet  could  have  predicted  without  contradiction  that 
the  destiny  of  the  Western  world  north  of  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico  would  be  at  the  disposal  of  the  King  of  France 
and  the  Pope  of  Rome.  But  by  1763,  when  the  Treaty  of 
Paris  was  signed,  the  French  territory,  from  the  Arctic 
Ocean  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  the  Spanish  territory 


230 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  231 


of  Florida  were  transferred  to  the  English  crown.  North 
America  then  passed  from  Romance  to  Anglo-Saxon,  and 
from  Catholic  to  Protestant,  control. 

The  Atlantic  coast  from  Maine  to  Florida  was  settled 
largely  by  the  English.  The  Dutch  on  the  Hudson  and 
the  Swedes  on  the  Delaware  laid  foundations  of  colonies, 
but  England  took  possession  and  built  upon  them.  Each 
nation,  and  the  different  groups  of  each,  brought  with 
them  and  perpetuated  in  the  New  World  the  religious 
divisions  of  the  Old.  From  Great  Britain  came  the  Ro- 
man Catholics,  the  Episcopalians,  the  Congregationalists, 
the  Presbyterians,  the  Baptists,  the  Quakers,  and,  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  the  Methodists.  From  Holland  came 
the  Dutch  Reformed  and  from  Sweden  the  Swedish 
Lutherans.  From  Germany  came  the  German  Lutherans, 
the  German  Reformed,  the  Mennonites,  the  Schwenck- 
felders,  and,  in  the  eighteenth  century,  the  Dunkards  and 
the  Moravians.  The  Reformed  churches  of  Switzerland 
and  France  sent  not  a few  pioneers  who  found  a home  in 
English  colonies,  but  instead  of  establishing  Swiss  or 
French  churches  in  America  they  united  with  churches 
of  the  Reformed  faith. 

The  Church  of  England,  till  the  Revolution,  remained 
the  undisputed  state  church  of  New  York  and  the  south- 
ern colonies.  The  churches  of  “the  standing  order”  in 
New  England  were  congregational  in  polity  and  Calvinis- 
tic  in  doctrine.  In  Rhode  Island,  Pennsylvania,  and  New 
Jersey  there  was  no  church  “by  law  established,”  but 
each  communion  was  given  freedom  to  abide  by  its  own 
faith  and  order.  In  New  England  the  churches  not  of 
the  congregational  type  and  in  New  York  and  the  South 
the  non-episcopal  churches  were  in  the  sight  of  the  law 
dissenters  and  nonconformists.  In  Rhode  Island,  New 
Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania,  in  the  absence  of  an  established 
church,  the  distinction  between  conformity  and  dissent 
lost  its  point.  These  colonies,  accordingly,  from  the  be- 
ginning were  in  a position  to  practice  religious  toleration 


232 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


to  an  extent  not  possible  in  the  other  colonies  of  New 
England  or  the  South. 

While  the  original  churches  on  American  soil  were 
in  their  belief  and  practice  European  churches  trans- 
planted, they  were  none  the  less  in  a new  land  and  clime, 
under  new  social  and  political  conditions,  which  in  time 
were  bound  to  work  a variation  of  type  and  to  produce  a 
distinctively  American  Christianity.  For  our  purpose  we 
shall  consider  the  relation  of  the  churches  to  their  new 
surroundings,  their  attitude  toward  one  another,  the  divi- 
sive and  unitive  factors  and  forces,  the  actual  divisions 
in  the  denominations,  and  the  attempts  both  to  heal 
schisms  and  to  unite  churches. 

I.  The  Influence  of  the  New  Surroundings  on  the 
Churches 

The  original  differences  between  the  churches  in 
Europe  were  not  at  once  abolished  in  the  colonies.  Epis- 
copalians, Presbyterians,  Congregationalists,  Baptists, 
and  Quakers  conformed  as  rigidly  to  type  in  America  as 
in  Europe.  Their  mutual  suspicions  and  prejudices  did 
not  die  out  in  the  voyage  across  the  Atlantic,  nor  were 
memories  at  once  blotted  out  in  the  wilderness.  There 
was  no  oneness  either  in  jurisdiction  or  in  confederation, 
as  in  the  political  sphere,  nor  even  by  diplomatic  recogni- 
tion or  correspondence. 

Tendencies  like  the  following  worked  for  disunion: 

1.  Freedom  from  the  coercion  of  civil  authority,  and 
the  independence  which  always  goes  with  pioneering,  re- 
enforced the  determination  of  each  group  to  teach  its  own 
doctrine  and  to  worship  in  its  own  way. 

2.  In  America  there  were  no  age-long  traditions,  no 
princes  and  no  prelates,  no  canons  and  no  customs  to  act 
as  deterrents  on  religious  individualism  and  sectarianism. 
In  Europe  the  tradition  of  Church  and  State  had  a re- 
straining influence  on  the  Protestant  founders  and  fol- 
lowers. They  were  hampered  in  the  consistent  applica- 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND 


233 


tion  of  their  ideals  in  cultus,  polity,  and  piety,  if  not  in 
doctrine.  The  divisive  tendencies,  strong  as  they  were, 
were  held  in  check  by  the  grip  of  the  dead  hand.  Only 
in  the  New  World  was  it  possible  in  the  course  of  three 
centuries  for  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  indepen- 
dent churches,  larger  and  smaller,  to  arise  and  win 
support. 

3.  The  forcible  establishment  of  the  English  state 
church  in  several  colonies  and  of  the  churches  of  “the 
standing  order”  in  New  England  naturally  provoked  sect 
and  schism,  as  did  similar  procedure  in  Europe. 

Yet  after  all  the  factors  favoring  division  have  been 
mentioned,  one  cannot  fail  to  discern  that  there  were 
counteracting  forces  working  for  closer  relations  among 
the  churches,  which  would  not  have  been  possible  in 
Europe. 

1.  With  their  differences  in  polity  and  cultus,  there  was 
a marked  agreement  in  fundamental  doctrines.  They 
were  at  one  on  the  Trinity,  the  Person  of  Christ,  total 
depravity,  expiatory  atonement,  justification  by  grace,  the 
authority  of  the  Bible,  and,  as  a rule,  on  an  educated 
ministry. 

2.  They  were  all  pioneers  in  a wilderness  with  common 
dangers,  sorrows,  tasks.  The  struggle  for  existence  often 
compelled  them  to  unite  in  one  way  or  another.  They 
felt  the  responsibility  of  Christianizing  a people  rapidly 
extending  the  border  from  the  Alleghanies  to  the  Mis- 
sissippi. For  the  immigrant,  moving  westward,  they 
built  churches,  opened  schools,  erected  benevolent  institu- 
tions, and  conducted  missions.  All  of  them  were  con- 
vinced that  the  destiny  of  the  country  was  inseparably 
bound  up  with  the  spread  of  the  Gospel.  An  uncon- 
scious growth  of  a common  type  of  religious  life  followed 
the  common  experience  in  subduing  a new  country. 

3.  Even  the  existence  of  multitudinous  sects  had  its 
compensations.  The  law  granted  them  equal  rights,  an 
equality  which  engendered  mutual  tolerance  and  regard. 


234 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


“The  habit  of  respecting  one  another’s  rights  cherishes  a 
feeling  of  mutual  respect  and  courtesy.  If,  on  the  one 
hand,  the  spirit  of  independence  fosters  individualism, 
on  the  other  it  favors  good  fellowship.  All  sects  are 
equal  before  the  law.  Hence  one  great  cause  of  jealousy 
and  distrust  is  removed ; and  though  at  times  sectarian 
zeal  may  lead  to  rivalries  and  controversies  unfavorable 
to  unity,  on  the  other  hand  the  independence  and  the 
equality  of  the  churches  favor  their  voluntary  cooper- 
ation.”1 

4.  The  Great  Awakening  of  1740  deepened  divisions, 
and  yet  aroused  the  consciousness  of  a national  religious 
unity.  Whitefield  became  a messenger  of  mutual  fellow- 
ship between  the  colonies.  “Churches  far  apart  exchanged 
offices  of  service.  Tennent  came  from  New  Jersey  to 
labor  in  New  England;  Dickinson,  Burr,  and  Edwards 
were  the  gifts  of  the  northern  colonies  to  the  college  at 
Princeton.  The  quickened  sense  of  a common  religious 
life  and  duty  and  destiny  was  no  small  part  of  the  prep- 
aration for  the  birth  of  the  future  nation.” 

Thus  without  conscious  effort  and  by  gradual  process 
American  Christianity  wrought  out  of  its  common  ex- 
perience in  a new  environment  and  in  an  original  form 
certain  distinctive  principles  which  were  recognized  for 
the  first  time  in  any  land  by  all  the  churches.  They  were : 
(a)  separation  of  Church  and  State;  (b)  equality  of  the 
churches;  (c)  religious  toleration;  (d)  voluntary  support 
of  the  churches  by  their  constituents.  The  first  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  codified  a new  national  and  ec- 
clesiastical ideal.  It  forbids  Congress  to  make  any  law 
“respecting  the  establishment  of  religion  or  prohibiting 
the  free  exercise  thereof.” 

The  almost  paradoxical  influence  of  religious  freedom 
for  Christian  unity  was  defined  in  prophetic  words  by 
John  Robinson.  The  Pilgrims  reported  that  he  said 

’J.  P.  Thompson,  “Church  and  State  in  the  United  States,” 
pp.  98-99. 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  235 


to  them  that  “many  of  those  who  both  wrote  and 
preached  against  them  would  practice  as  they  [the 
Pilgrims]  did  if  they  were  in  a place  where  they  might 
have  liberty  and  live  conformably.”  “And  so,”  says 
Edward  Winslow,  “he  advised  us  to  close  with  the  godly 
party  of  the  Kingdom  of  England,  and  rather  to  study 
union  than  division,  viz : — how  near  we  might  possibly 
without  sin  close  with  them  rather  than  in  the  least  man- 
ner to  effect  division  or  separation  from  them.’” 

II.  The  Attitude  of  the  Churches  toward  One 
Another  in  the  Colonial  Period 

The  prophecy  and  the  precept  of  John  Robinson  were 
fulfilled  when  the  Pilgrims  at  Plymouth  agreed  with  the 
Puritans  at  Salem  upon  a new  form  of  church  organiza- 
tion, the  first  instance  of  church  union  in  America. 

The  Puritans  when  they  left  England  disavowed  sep- 
aration from  the  English  Church,  but  sought  to  “separate 
from  the  corruptions  in  it.”  “We  go,”  said  Mr.  Higgin- 
son,  “to  practice  the  positive  part  of  church  reformation 
and  to  propagate  the  Gospel  in  America.”  But  after 
their  settlement  at  Salem  two  questions  confronted  them, 
their  relation  to  the  Church  of  England  and  their  rela- 
tion to  the  church  at  Plymouth. 

As  to  the  former,  it  was  generally  conceded  that  for 
the  new  commonwealth  which  they  were  erecting  in  the 
wilderness  they  needed  also  a new  church.  For  they  no 
longer  considered  themselves  a branch  of  the  English 
Church.  Following  the  New  Testament,  they  concluded 
it  to  be  “necessary  for  those  who  intended  to  be  of  the 
Church  solemnly  to  enter  into  a covenant  engagement 
one  with  another,  in  the  presence  of  God,  to  walk  to- 
gether before  Him  according  to  His  word.”  Suiting  their 
action  to  the  word,  thirty  persons  entered  into  covenant 
relations  and  founded  the  first  American  church.  They 


’Leonard  Bacon,  “American  Christianity,”  p.  93. 


236 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


proceeded  also  to  choose  new  ministers.  For  in  their 
view  the  ministry  of  the  Church  of  England  had  no  au- 
thority in  the  church  of  God  at  Salem.  Two  recognized 
candidates  were  elected  and  solemnly  inducted  into  office 
with  prayer  and  the  laying  on  of  hands. 

Before  the  services  of  the  day  were  concluded,  Gov- 
ernor Bradford  arrived  from  Plymouth  and  in  the  pub- 
lic assembly  in  the  name  of  the  Pilgrims  he  gave  his 
“approbation  and  concurrence,”  extending  the  right  hand 
of  fellowship  to  the  first-born  church  in  America.  Thus 
they  separated  from  the  Church  of  England  and  united 
with  the  church  at  Plymouth.  The  union  was  based  on 
mutual  concessions.  The  Puritans  became  separatists 
and  the  Pilgrims  became  nationalists,  and  both  recognized 
the  covenant  as  the  basis  of  the  new  fellowship.  They 
had  the  same  simplicity  in  their  order  of  worship  and 
preached  the  same  Calvinistic  theology. 

“The  successive  companies  of  immigrants,”  says  Leon- 
ard Bacon,  “each  with  its  minister  or  college  of  minis- 
ters, followed  with  almost  monotonous  exactness  the 
method  of  the  organization  of  the  church  at  Salem.” 
These  became  the  churches  of  “the  standing  order”  in 
New  England,  not  unlike,  and  yet  different  from,  the 
established  churches  of  Europe.  Their  uniformity, 
though  at  first  voluntarily  accepted  by  each  community, 
bred  dissent.  The  Puritans  did  not  shrink  from  exclud- 
ing those  who,  through  their  doctrines  or  practice,  dis- 
turbed the  peace  of  the  colony.  They  affirmed  the  right 
to  pick  their  own  company.  When  John  and  Samuel 
Browne,  brothers  and  members  of  the  colonial  council, 
refused  to  abide  by  the  new  order  of  the  church  of  Salem 
and  defiantly  set  up  a separate  worship  according  to  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  the  Governor  after  vainly  rea- 
soning with  them  deported  them  to  England,  on  the 
ground  that  “their  speeches  and  practices  tended  to  mu- 
tiny and  faction.” 

Roger  Williams  is  described  as  a “learned,  eloquent, 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND 


sincere,  and  generous  man,”  highly  respected  by  those  who 
differed  from  him.  Yet  he  was  clearly  out  of  his  element 
in  a community  where  religious  and  civil  authority  were 
so  closely  related.  He  was  a separatist  of  separatists  to 
the  point  of  refusal,  for  conscience  sake,  to  join  his  wife 
in  family  prayers.  After  long  patience  the  government 
advised  him  that  he  would  have  to  find  room  for  his  kind 
of  conscience  in  another  place.  He  sought  refuge  in 
Rhode  Island.  Mrs.  Ann  Hutchinson  suffered  a similar 
fate  and  went  to  the  same  place.  Two  adventurous  and 
by  no  means  quietistic  Quaker  women  were  sent  to  the 
Barbadoes,  and  a law  was  enacted  against  “all  Quakers, 
Ranters,  and  other  notorious  heretics.”  Penalties  of  flog- 
ging, imprisonment  at  hard  labor,  and  death  were  pro- 
vided for  offenders  of  this  sort. 

There  were,  also,  widely  diverging  tendencies  on  ques- 
tions of  polity  under  cover  of  uniformity.  John  Eliot 
leaned  hard  toward  Presbyterianism  and  John  Wise  to- 
ward democratic  independency.  For  larger  freedom  in 
building  his  ideal  New  Jerusalem,  Thomas  Hooker  led 
forth  his  flock  a second  time  into  the  great  and  terrible 
wilderness.  John  Davenport  and  Theophilus  Eaton,  in 
spite  of  many  importunities  to  remain  in  Massachusetts, 
turned  toward  Connecticut  and  laid  the  foundations  of 
New  Haven. 

The  primary  cause  for  the  divisions  in  the  early  New 
England  churches  was  not  theological,  but  contention  be- 
tween separatists  and  nationalists  as  to  form  of  church 
government.  The  separatists  opposed  any  form  of  union 
between  Church  and  State.  They  denied  the  authority 
of  the  State  to  enforce  the  first  table  of  the  Decalogue, 
to  support  the  church  by  taxation,  or  to  make  religious 
restrictions  for  suffrage  or  for  holding  office.  They  also 
refused  to  recognize  any  visible  authority  above  the  con- 
gregation, whether  it  be  town  council  or  presbytery,  king 
or  prelate.  The  nationalists  insisted  on  union  of  Church 
and  State,  a Church  supported  by  the  State,  and  a State 


238 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


directed  by  the  Church.  Through  both  the  will  of  God 
in  His  word  was  to  prevail  in  the  community. 

The  policy  of  exclusion  adopted  by  the  churches  of 
Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  called  forth  an  experi- 
ment of  toleration  in  Rhode  Island.  Hither  came  Roger 
Williams  and  Ann  Hutchinson,  Quakers  and  Baptists, 
the  distressed  and  discontented.  They  were  protected  by 
the  provision  in  the  charter  of  1644,  that  “ all  men  may 
walk  as  their  conscience  persuades  them.” 

Their  dissent,  however,  bore  fruit  after  its  kind.  Sep- 
aratists separated  from  one  another.  The  Providence 
Baptists  divided  in  1652  into  the  “five  principle  Baptists” 
and  the  “six  principle  Baptists.”  The  centrifugal  ten- 
dencies were  so  strong  that  it  was  with  difficulty  that  a 
sufficient  number  of  men  and  women  joined  in  an  assem- 
bly for  common  worship.  After  a century  there  were  not 
more  than  eight  or  ten  churches  of  any  denomination  and 
these  were  mostly  in  a feeble  and  precarious  state. 

Strange  as  it  may  seem,  here  men  were  imbued  with 
the  spirit  of  toleration  and  they  became  its  prophets  in 
the  New  World.  Though  the  churches  of  the  “standing 
order”  at  first  despised  them,  they  could  not  escape  the 
infection  of  the  new  spirit.  The  towns  of  Massachusetts 
first  endured  and  then  embraced  “the  peace  and  love 
which  societies  of  different  modes  of  worship  entertained 
toward  each  other  in  Rhode  Island.”  In  1714  the  Bap- 
tists of  Boston  were  invited  to  join  the  other  churches 
in  a service  of  thanksgiving,  the  invitation  having  been 
written  in  courteous  style  by  Cotton  Mather  and  ad- 
dressed to  “my  worthy  friend,  Mr.  Ellis  Callender,  elder 
of  a church  of  Christ  in  Boston.”  In  1718  the  Baptists 
of  Boston  reciprocated  the  courtesy  by  inviting  Cotton 
Mather  to  preach  the  ordination  sermon  for  Elisha  Cal- 
lender. The  theme  of  the  sermon  was  “Good  Men 
United.”  In  it  he  defined  his  theory  of  fellowship  among 
the  different  churches,  when  he  said : “Let  good  men  go 
as  far  as  they  can  without  sin  in  holding  communion  with 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  239 


one  another.  But  where  sinful  terms  are  imposed,  there 
let  them  make  their  stop ; there  separation  becomes  a 
duty;  there  the  injunction  of  heaven  upon  them  is,  ‘Be 
ye  separate,  saith  the  Lord,  and  touch  not  the  unclean 
thing  and  I will  receive  you.’  ” 

The  spirit  of  toleration  also  prevailed  from  the  begin- 
ning in  the  colony  of  Penn,  who  made  it  one  of  the 
primary  features  of  his  “Holy  Experiment.”  It  spread 
through  all  the  states  and  was  furthered  in  various  ways. 
We  need  but  mention  the  growth  in  influence  of  the  dis- 
senting churches,  the  rapid  spread  of  Methodism  with 
its  infectious  enthusiasm,  the  sense  of  national  unity 
born  of  the  Revolution,  the  recognition  of  leaders  of 
state  regardless  of  denominational  affiliations  in  assembly 
halls  and  on  battlefields,  the  liberalizing  of  thought,  the 
abolishing  of  religious  qualifications  for  voters  and  office- 
holders, the  disestablishment  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
New  York  and  in  the  South,  the  withdrawal  in  the  New 
England  states  of  taxes  for  the  support  of  the  Church, 
and  the  common  interest  in  humanitarian  reforms  such 
as  temperance,  the  abolition  of  slavery,  and  the  improve- 
ment of  prisons. 

III.  Causes  of  Divisions  in  the  American  Churches 

The  causes  for  the  divisions  that  have  arisen  in  the 
American  churches  have  varied  and,  of  course,  have  not 
all  been  active  in  each  division.  They  may  be  summa- 
rized as  differences  of  view  on  (1)  relation  of  Church 
and  State;  (2)  revivals;  (3)  slavery  and  secession;  (4) 
doctrine;  (5)  discipline  and  rites. 

1.  When  the  principle  of  a free  Church  in  a free  State 
was  codified  in  an  amendment  to  the  national  Constitu- 
tion, the  controversy  about  the  relation  of  Church  and 
State,  which  disturbed  and  divided  the  pioneers,  closed. 
Yet  the  issue  was  revived  in  a different  form  when  in 
1831  the  Covenanters  divided  on  the  attitude  of  the 
Church  toward  the  Government.  It  was  one  of  the  main 


240 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


reasons  also  for  protest  and  separation  of  the  Presby- 
terians of  the  South,  who  established  a General  Assem- 
bly and  became  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Confed- 
erate States  of  America,  now  known  as  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States. 

While  this  question  may  not  provoke  further  division, 
it  is  still  a vital  issue  in  negotiations  for  union  between 
the  northern  and  southern  churches  and  requires  serious 
consideration. 

2.  The  Great  Awakening  had  its  beneficent  effects  on 
all  the  churches  of  the  colonies.  Yet  it  was  not  an  un- 
mixed blessing.  While  it  converted  men,  it  also  divided 
churches.  In  New  England  the  division  was  more  in 
ways  of  thinking  than  in  the  forming  of  independent 
sects.  Those  who  in  their  new  zeal  went  out  of  the 
“churches  of  the  standing  order”  either  joined  the  Bap- 
tists, who  profited  greatly  by  the  revival,  or  laid  the  foun- 
dations of  Methodism,  which  spread  rapidly  throughout 
the  colonies.  The  Synod  of  the  American  Presbyterian 
Church  could  not  withstand  the  divisive  influence  of  the 
Awakening.  Two  bitterly  hostile  sections,  the  Old  Side 
and  the  New  Side,  could  not  walk  together,  because  they 
were  not  agreed.  The  latter  impeached  the  spiritual 
character  of  the  former.  Uninvited  evangelists  went  into 
other  men’s  parishes  and  delivered  scathing  invectives 
against  an  unconverted  ministry.  In  churches  and  in 
private  houses  the  “hot  gospelers”  held  their  meetings 
and  uttered  their  inflammatory  speeches.  The  outcome 
was  a schism,  when,  after  a short  and  easy  process  of 
discipline,  the  presbytery  of  New  Brunswick  was  ex- 
scinded from  the  synod,  and  the  presbytery  of  New  York 
joined  with  it  in  organizing  a new  synod. 

The  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church  grew  out  of  the 
revival  of  1800  in  Kentucky.  Certain  doctrines  were 
preached  which  did  not  fully  accord  with  the  standards 
of  the  Synod  of  Kentucky.  This  led  to  a virtual  sus- 
pension of  the  revival  ministers  and  the  dissolution  of 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND 


241 


their  presbytery.  Through  the  organization  of  a new 
presbytery  in  1810  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church 
had  its  origin. 

The  impact  of  Methodism  upon  the  German  Reformed 
and  the  German  Lutheran  Church,  and  the  lack  of  re- 
sponse and  in  some  quarters  even  opposition  to  the  influ- 
ence of  the  movement  within  these  bodies,  were  the  prim- 
ary cause  for  the  rise  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ 
and  the  Evangelical  Association.  The  leaders  and  the 
original  members  of  these  sects  came  largely  from  the 
German  churches  which  had  little  sympathy  for  the  new 
measures. 

Revivalism  at  present  arouses  opposition,  but  not  to 
such  an  extent  as  to  call  for  synodical  action  or  to  pro- 
voke schism.  The  churches  which  once  by  a large  major- 
ity opposed  the  whole  system  are  now  hospitable  toward 
evangelists  and  heartily  cooperate  in  revival  movements. 
They  are  more  of  a unitive  than  a divisive  factor  in  con- 
temporary American  Christianity.8 

3.  When,  through  the  Revolution,  the  political  and  ec- 
clesiastical ties  to  Europe  were  severed,  the  different 
churches  vied  with  one  another  in  the  establishment  of 
national  organizations  through  general  assemblies,  synods, 
councils,  or  conferences.  They  felt  a new  sense  both  of 
ability  and  responsibility  and  girded  themselves  for  their 
task.  The  home  mission  field  extended  westward  toward 
the  Rockies.  They  heard  and  responded  to  the  call  of 
the  foreign  field.  They  turned  their  attention  also  to 
moral  and  social  reform. 

But  new  political  and  religious  questions  arose  which 
divided  not  only  the  nation  but  the  churches.  Foremost 
among  these  issues  was  the  abolition  of  slavery,  which 
was  indeed  a moral  question  but  had  far-reaching  politi- 
cal bearings.  It  involved  the  relative  rights  of  the  states 
and  of  the  national  government.  In  the  heat  of  contro- 

Cf.  pp.  258-262  for  a discussion  of  the  unifying  effect  of 
revivals. 


242 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


versy  every  phase  of  life,  individual  and  social,  was 
affected. 

The  feeling  in  the  churches  ran  as  high  as  in  legis- 
latures and  in  Congress.  Schism  was  as  unavoidable 
as  secession.  The  Southern  Baptist  Convention  was  or- 
ganized in  1845.  The  conferences  of  the  Methodist 
Church  in  the  South  met  in  a general  convention  in  1845, 
and  according  to  “The  Plan  of  Separation,”  prepared  in 
1844,  they  proceeded  to  organize  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  South.  The  General  Assembly  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  in  1861,  adopted  a resolution  which  in 
part  reads  as  follows : “That  this  General  Assembly  . . . 
do  hereby  acknowledge  and  declare  our  obligation  to 
promote  and  perpetuate  . . . the  integrity  of  these  United 
States,  and  to  strengthen,  uphold,  and  encourage  the 
Federal  Government  in  the  exercise  of  all  its  functions 
under  our  noble  Constitution.”  The  southern  presby- 
teries considered  this  action  an  attempt  to  coerce  the 
Presbyterians  of  the  South  to  the  support  of  the  Federal 
Government,  as  over  against  the  governments  of  their 
several  states.  Protests  were  raised  on  every  side  and 
the  demand  for  severance  from  the  General  Assembly 
became  irresistible.  Following  a convention  at  Atlanta  in 
August,  1861,  consisting  of  twenty  delegates  from  eleven 
presbyteries,  the  first  General  Assembly  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  South,  met  in  December,  1861.  The 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  however,  was  only  tem- 
porarily divided  on  account  of  secession.  The  division 
was  effected  in  a convention  at  Montgomery,  Alabama, 
called  by  the  bishops  of  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Mis- 
sissippi, Florida,  and  Texas.  But  as  early  as  1865  the 
bishop  of  North  Carolina  and  the  bishop  of  South  Car- 
olina attended  the  General  Convention  at  Philadelphia. 
They  were  cordially  received  and  took  their  places  among 
the  other  bishops. 

The  schism  in  the  other  churches  continues  to  this 
day.  Proposals  for  reunion  have  been  made  and  are 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  243 


now  under  consideration.  So  far  there  has  been  no  suc- 
cessful outcome.  While  the  casual  observer  naturally 
regards  the  original  causes  for  division  as  no  longer  co- 
gent, the  leaders,  especially  in  the  southern  churches, 
find  points  of  sufficient  difference  to  make  them  tread 
softly  in  their  advance  toward  reunion. 

4.  The  two  doctrinal  systems,  Calvinism  and  Armin- 
ianism,  which  divided  the  Protestants  of  Europe,  contin- 
ued to  divide  them  in  America.  Not  only  were  the 
European  divisions  perpetuated  here,  but  new  divisions 
arose.  The  Baptists  split  into  an  Arminian  and  a Cal- 
vinistic  group.  The  Cumberland  Presbyterians  leaned 
toward  Arminianism  and  were  not  in  good  odor  with  the 
orthodox  Presbyterians.  The  presbyteries  of  the  General 
Assembly  were  divided  into  the  Old  School  and  the  New 
School  largely  on  doctrinal  grounds.  In  1837,  in  the 
interest  of  sound  doctrine  and  strict  church  order,  an 
Old  School  majority  in  the  Assembly  exscinded  four 
synods  with  533  churches.  These  synods  organized  an 
assembly  of  their  own  and  continued  a separate  existence 
until  the  reunion  of  the  two  schools  and  their  assemblies 
in  1870. 

A more  radical  tendency  in  New  England  resulted  in 
the  Unitarian  separation.  As  early  as  1785  James  Free- 
man, pastor  of  King’s  Chapel,  the  oldest  Episcopal 
Church  in  New  England,  became  a convert  to  Unitarian 
views.  He  was  inducted  into  the  ministry  of  the  congre- 
gation without  the  presence  of  a bishop,  and  thus  “the 
first  Episcopal  Church  in  New  England  became  the  first 
Unitarian  Church  in  America.” 

The  Universalists  were  organized  about  the  same  time, 
1779,  at  Gloucester,  Mass.,  by  Mr.  Murray.  In  1785 
Elhanan  Winchester,  a thoroughly  Calvinistic  Baptist 
minister,  led  forth  a hundred  of  his  excommunicated 
brethren  and  founded  a “Society  of  Universalist  Bap- 
tists.” The  two  differing  schools  fraternized  in  a conven- 
tion of  Universalist  Churches  at  Philadelphia  in  1794 


244 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


and  set  forth  articles  of  belief  and  a plan  of  organization. 

In  1827-8  the  Friends  separated  into  Hicksites  and  Or- 
thodox. In  1854  the  Wiiburite  separation  followed.  Both 
these  divisions  were  due  to  doctrinal  differences. 

The  earlier  distinctions  in  doctrine  may  have  lost  their 
original  significance,  yet  they  have  hardened  into  lines 
of  cleavage  between  the  churches  which  are  not  easily 
abolished.  Besides  these  hereditary  doctrinal  distinc- 
tions, there  are  two  schools  or  tendencies  in  American 
Christianity  today,  which  have  not  yet  resulted  in  sep- 
aration or  in  the  founding  of  new  churches.  They  are 
the  liberal  evangelicals  and  the  premillenarians,  each  a 
more  or  less  pervasive  influence  in  all  the  denominations. 
The  liberal  evangelicals  may  in  time  find  closer  fellow- 
ship in  the  churches,  and  yet  there  is  always  the  pos- 
sibility of  a new  schism.  The  premillenarians  are  avowed 
enemies  of  all  liberalism.  They  believe  themselves  to 
possess  the  original  Gospel  of  Jesus  and  the  apostles  and 
to  be  ardent  champions  of  the  Christian  fundamentals. 
Their  strength  is  in  the  Bible  schools,  which  practically 
all  teach  premillenarian  doctrine. 

5.  An  apparently  minor,  and  yet  an  effective,  cause  of 
divisions  has  been  the  matter  of  discipline,  rites,  and  cer- 
emonies. Questions  of  this  kind  are  of  great  moment 
among  those  who  seek  to  conform  life  and  worship  to 
the  letter  of  the  Bible,  one  of  the  main  characteristics 
of  the  sects.  The  Baptists  of  Providence,  Rhode  Island, 
divided  on  the  laying  on  of  hands;  the  Dunkards  in  Penn- 
sylvania on  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  community  of 
goods,  and  marriage.  The  contention  between  the  Regu- 
lar and  Separate  Baptists  was  about  love-feasts,  laying 
on  of  hands,  feet-washing,  anointing  the  sick,  devotion 
of  children,  and  weekly  communion.  When  Bishop 
Cummins  joined  with  the  Dean  of  Canterbury  in  cele- 
brating the  Holy  Communion  in  a Presbyterian  Church 
in  connection  with  the  meeting  of  the  Evangelical  Alli- 
ance in  New  York  in  1873,  he  gave  grave  offense  to  the 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  245 


Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.  He 
was  deposed  in  1874  and  became  the  founder  of  the  Re- 
formed Episcopal  Church. 

In  the  first  decades  of  the  nineteenth  century  Alex- 
ander Campbell  by  word  and  pen  pleaded  for  a restora- 
tion of  the  original  Gospel  and  the  apostolic  order  of 
things.  He  stood  for  the  Bible  alone,  without  any  human 
addition  in  the  form  of  creeds  or  confessions  of  faith. 
Upon  this  basis,  the  pure  teaching  of  the  apostles,  he 
hoped  for  a union  of  Christians  of  every  name.  Both  he 
and  his  father  Thomas  were  convinced  that  the  only 
valid  baptism  in  the  New  Testament  was  by  immersion. 
They  and  their  followers  were  immersed  and  joined  a 
Baptist  Association.  But  in  1827  the  Baptist  Churches 
withdrew  fellowship  from  those  who  contended  for  the 
Bible  alone,  and  the  followers  of  Campbell  became  an 
independent  church  now  known  as  Christians  or  Dis- 
ciples of  Christ. 

In  all  these  divisions,  whether  they  are  regarded  as 
justifiable  or  not,  one  must  recognize  the  sincerity  and 
loyalty  of  their  leaders.  They  were  invariably  possessed 
with  the  conviction  that  they  had  discovered  the  way  of 
Christ,  as  it  was  not  held  in  any  of  the  surrounding 
churches.  It  was  this  that  constrained  them  to  start  new 
organizations  to  glorify  God  and  to  serve  their  fellowmen. 

IV.  Attempts  at  Union  of  American  Churches 

The  nineteenth  century  may  be  characterized  as  the 
century  of  endeavor  for  church  union.  The  widespread 
desire  for  it  is  evidenced  by  publications,  conventions, 
addresses,  proposals,  and  plans  of  union.  These  have 
come  from  unexpected  sources  and  have  awakened  uni- 
versal interest.  All  this  proceeds  from  the  inner  life  of 
American  Christianity,  which  is  deeply  moved  by  new 
ideas  felt  rather  than  defined. 

Among  the  unitive  forces  which  have  thus  been  at 
work  are  the  following: 


246 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


1.  A quickened  sense  of  the  essential  oneness  of  the 
Church  of  Christ  and  of  the  consequent  wrongness  of 
sect  and  schism.  Once  Christians  gloried  in  their  divi- 
sions, now  they  seek  to  overcome  them.  Professor  John 
W.  Nevin  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  United  States 
published  a tract  in  1847,  entitled  “Anti-Christ,”  which 
he  described  not  as  Nero  or  the  Pope  but  as  the  spirit  of 
sect  and  schism.  Reference  is  now  frequently  made  to 
the  sin  of  a divided  Protestantism. 

2.  The  historical  study  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  the 
history  of  Christianity.  This  has  delivered  men  from 
dogmatic  and  ecclesiastical  prejudices  which  divide  them, 
and  has  given  them  new  unifying  bases  of  thought  and 
action. 

3.  The  recognition,  which  is  growing,  that  there  is  a 
difference  between  essential  Christianity  and  its  denom- 
inational forms.  It  is  seen  that  there  is  that  which  is 
common  to  all  churches  which  makes  them  Christian, 
and  that  which  is  distinctive  of  each  which  makes  them 
sectarian. 

4.  The  necessity  of  a combination  of  forces  for  the 
accomplishment  of  the  Lord’s  work — evangelism,  foreign 
missions,  home  missions,  religious  education,  moral  and 
social  reforms.  Such  combination  works  in  the  interest 
of  economy  of  men  and  money  as  well  as  of  efficiency  of 
work.  Here,  also,  are  to  be  mentioned  organizations  for 
charitable  work,  which  unite  the  gifts  and  personal  labors 
of  the  Christians  of  the  whole  continent. 

5.  Cooperation  in  certain  forms  of  religious  propa- 
ganda, such  as  the  American  Bible  Society,  the  Interna- 
tional Sunday  School  Association,  the  American  Tract 
Society,  summer  Bible  schools,  Chautauquas  and  confer- 
ences, the  Young  Men’s  and  Young  Women’s  Christian 
Associations,  the  Woman’s  Christian  Temperance  Lmion, 
the  King’s  Daughters,  the  Christian  Endeavor  Society. 

6.  An  ever-growing  conception  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God  as  wider  than  any  church  and  as  the  goal  for  all 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  247 


churches.  Once  denominations  with  good  conscience 
worked  for  their  own  interests  and  through  the  denomi- 
nation for  the  salvation  of  souls.  Now  men  work  pri- 
marily for  the  salvation  of  souls  in  the  interest  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  Denominations  are  thought  of  as  a 
means  to  a higher  end.  When  men  come  under  the 
power  of  this  vision  of  the  Kingdom,  the  things  which 
divide  the  Church  diminish  and  the  things  that  unite  the 
Church  increase. 

Two  kinds  of  church  union  have  been  pursued.  The 
one  had  for  its  purpose  the  healing  of  a schism  in  a de- 
nomination ; the  other,  the  union  of  two  or  more  churches 
either  of  the  same  name  or  of  different  names.  The 
forms  of  union  have  varied  from  a temporary  alliance 
for  a specific  purpose  to  permanent  organic  union.  In 
proportion  as  a proposed  union  was  comprehensive  and 
inclusive  its  basis  was  generic,  with  a brief  statement  of 
essential  doctrines  and  wide  room  for  diversity  in  wor- 
ship and  work.  A union  between  churches  of  the  same 
name  was  usually  based  on  a standard  of  doctrine  ac- 
cepted by  each,  or  on  the  recognition  of  the  confessions 
of  the  one  as  the  equivalent  of  the  other.  In  case  of 
alliance  or  federation  scarcely  any  perceptible  change  in 
doctrine,  cultus,  or  polity  was  required. 

Even  in  the  colonial  period  definite  measures  were 
taken  for  the  healing  of  the  schisms  which  had  been  im- 
ported from  over  the  sea.  As  instances  of  this  tendency 
Leonard  Bacon  cites  “the  commingling  of  Separatist  and 
Puritan  in  New  England;  the  temporary  alliance  of  Con- 
gregationalist  and  Presbyterian  to  avert  the  imposition  of 
a state  hierarchy;  the  combination  of  Quaker  and  Roman 
Catholic  to  defeat  a project  of  religious  oppression  in 
Maryland ; the  drawing  together  of  Lutheran  and  Re- 
formed Germans  for  common  worship,  under  the  saintly 
influence  of  the  Moravian  Zinzendorf ; and  the  Plan  of 
Union  by  which  New  Englander  and  Scotch-Irishman 
were  to  labor  in  common  for  the  evangelization  of  the 


248 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


new  settlements.”*  These  were  sporadic  efforts,  which  in 
the  next  century  were  to  become  epidemic. 

The  spirit  of  reunion  has  wrought  effectively  in  the 
American  churches  during  the  last  century.  The  Regu- 
lar and  the  special  Baptists  led  the  way  in  1787.  The 
Northern  Baptists  and  the  Free  Baptists  in  1911  united 
their  general  work  preparatory  to  organic  union,  into 
the  fuller  realization  of  which  they  have  since  been  mov- 
ing. The  churches  of  the  Presbyterian  order  have  come 
under  the  power  of  the  same  spirit.  Witness  the  reunion 
of  the  Old  School  and  the  New  School  in  1871 ; of  the 
Cumberland  Presbyterians  with  the  Northern  Presbyteri- 
ans ; and  at  intervals  the  joining  of  seven  larger  or  smaller 
bodies  with  the  Southern  Presbyterian  General  Assem- 
bly. Minor  Methodist  bodies  have  either  united  with 
each  other  or  have  joined  the  General  Conference  of  the 
North  or  the  South.  The  Lutherans  have  recently  con- 
summated the  union  of  three  of  their  largest  Synods  and 
Councils  in  what  is  now  known  as  “the  United  Lutheran 
Church  of  America.” 

Thus  far  we  have  cited  examples  only  of  the  union  or 
reunion  of  churches  of  the  same  group  or  name.  This 
ought  not  to  have  been  so  difficult  to  accomplish.  Yet 
it  is  symptomatic  of  a change  of  heart  in  the  churches 
from  polemical  antagonism  to  friendly  recognition.  Men 
are  beginning  to  recognize  not  only  the  Christians  in 
other  churches  but  the  churches  of  other  Christians. 
Voices  are  heard  and  methods  are  proposed  from  different 
sources  for  the  union,  federal  or  organic,  of  all  the  Chris- 
tian churches  in  America  and  even  of  all  the  churches  of 
Christ  in  the  whole  world.6 

One  of  the  first  of  the  prophets  of  a larger  union  was 
Leonard  Bacon  in  an  article  in  The  New  Englander  for 
April,  1844:  “Why  might  there  not  be,  ere  long,  some 

“‘American  Christianity,”  p.  406. 

“The  foreign  field  has  more  *han  kept  pace  with  the  home  field, 
as  a later  section  shows. 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  249 


general  conference  in  which  the  various  evangelical 
bodies  of  this  country  and  Great  Britain  and  of  the  Con- 
tinent of  Europe  should  be  in  some  way  represented — a 
council  not  for  legislation  and  division,  but  for  union  and 
communion  and  for  the  extension  of  the  saving  knowl- 
edge of  Christ?” 

In  1861  the  Assembly  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian 
Church  addressed  a letter  to  “all  the  Churches  of  Jesus 
Christ  throughout  the  earth”  expressing  a desire  to  culti- 
vate peace  and  charity  with  all  fellow-Christians  through- 
out the  world.  In  1866  the  same  Assembly  appointed  a 
committee  of  “chosen  brethren”  to  bear  the  Church’s 
desire  for  fellowship,  as  far  as  practicable,  with  all  true 
disciples  of  our  common  Lord  and  Saviour  in  all  the  world 
“ to  such  Christian  Churches  and  Societies  in  the  kingdom 
of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  and,  if  it  be  deemed  best, 
on  the  Continent  of  Europe  also.” 

Alexander  Campbell,  a founder  of  the  Disciples,  was 
apprehended  by  the  spirit  of  union  and  saw  clearly,  as 
did  few  of  his  time,  the  necessity  of  a united  Church  for 
a saved  world.  “The  union  of  Christians,”  he  wrote, 
“with  the  testimony  of  the  apostles  is  all-sufficient  and 
alone  sufficient  to  the  conversion  of  the  world.  Neither 
truth  alone  nor  union  alone  is  sufficient  to  subdue  the 
unbelieving  nations ; but  truth  and  union  combined  are 
omnipotent.”  Contrary  to  his  purpose  he  became  the 
founder  of  a new  church  which,  however,  has  ever  since 
been  a witness  in  its  way  to  the  ideals  of  its  great  leader.1’ 
In  their  General  Convention  at  Topeka,  Kansas,  in  1910, 
the  Disciples  of  Christ  revived  the  “Christian  Associa- 
tion” first  organized  by  Thomas  Campbell  in  1809.  The 
new  organization  took  the  name  “Association  for  the 
Promotion  of  Christian  Unity.”  It  “recognizes  all  Chris- 
tians as  members  of  the  Body  of  Christ — Greek  Ortho- 


8 A more  detailed  study  of  the  rise  of  the  Disciples  as  an  effort 
to  secure  organic  union  is  found  on  pages  298-302. 


250 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


dox,  Roman  Catholic,  Anglican,  Protestants,  and  all 
others  who  accept  Jesus  Christ  as  Lord  and  Saviour.” 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  also  has  had  its  seers 
preparing  the  way  for  proposals  and  plans  of  union  that 
have  come  during  the  last  decades  from  that  body.  As 
early  as  1792  Bishop  Madison  in  the  General  Convention 
offered  a resolution  looking  toward  conferences  for  union 
with  Christians  of  other  denominations.  When  the  House 
of  Deputies  did  not  look  upon  it  with  favor,  the  Bishop 
withdrew  the  proposal. 

In  1853  a Memorial  was  addressed  “To  the  Bishops  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  Council  Assembled.” 
It  breathed  the  spirit  of  William  Augustus  Muhlenberg, 
who  with  ten  others  signed  it.  It  expressed  the  convic- 
tion “that  our  church,  confined  to  the  exercise  of  her  pres- 
ent system,  is  not  sufficient  to  the  great  purposes  above 
mentioned  [“the  work  of  preaching  and  dispensing  the 
Gospel  to  all  sorts  and  conditions  of  men  and  so  adequate 
to  do  the  work  of  the  Lord  in  this  land  and  in  this  age”] 
and  a wider  door  must  be  opened  for  admission  to  the 
gospel  ministry  ...  of  men  who  could  not  bring  them- 
selves to  conform  in  all  particulars  to  our  prescriptions 
and  customs,  yet  sound  in  the  faith.”  So  far  as  immedi- 
ate results  were  concerned  the  Memorial  was  a failure, 
yet  it  raised  questions  and  provoked  discussions  which, 
without  question,  had  profound  effect  on  the  future  action 
of  the  Church. 

Thirty-three  years  after  the  Memorial  movement,  the 
House  of  Bishops  of  the  General  Convention  in  Chicago 
issued  in  1886  a Declaration  Concerning  Unity.  In  re- 
sponse to  it  a committee  was  appointed  “to  consider  the 
matter  of  the  reunion  of  Christendom.”  In  its  report 
the  committee  defined,  in  the  so-called  “Quadrilateral,"  the 
four  points  “essential  to  the  restoration  of  unity  among 
the  divided  branches  of  Christendom,”  as  follows: 

“1.  The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, as  the  revealed  word  of  God, 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  251 


“2.  The  Nicene  Creed,  as  the  sufficient  statement  of  the 
Christian  Faith. 

3.  The  two  Sacraments,  baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the 
Lord,  ministered  with  unfailing  use  of  Christ’s  words  of 
institution,  and  of  the  elements  ordained  by  Him. 

4.  The  historic  episcopate,  locally  adapted  in  the  meth- 
ods of  its  administration  to  the  varying  needs  of  the  na- 
tions and  peoples  called  of  God  into  the  unity  of  His 
Church.”7 

A later  official  utterance  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
was  made  by  the  General  Convention  of  Cincinnati  in 
1910,  which  appointed  a commission  to  arrange  for  a 
world  conference  on  faith  and  order.  The  resolution  ask- 
ing for  such  a commission  read  in  part  as  follows:  “We 
believe  that  the  time  has  now  arrived  when  representa- 
tives of  the  whole  family  of  Christ,  led  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
may  be  willing  to  come  together  for  the  consideration  of 
questions  of  Faith  and  Order.  ...  It  is  our  conviction  that 
such  a conference  for  the  purpose  of  study  and  discus- 
sion, without  power  to  legislate  or  to  adopt  resolutions, 
is  the  next  step  toward  unity.”  While  the  Convention  at 
Cincinnati  was  in  session,  the  Congregationalists  and  the 
Disciples  were  constituting  similar  commissions  and  these 
have  cooperated  with  the  Episcopal  Commission.  The 
Executive  Committee  of  the  Alliance  of  Reformed 
Churches  holding  the  Presbyterian  System  also  signified 
their  approval.  The  churches  of  America,  Europe,  and 
Asia,  with  the  exception  of  the  Roman  Catholic,  have 
received  with  favor  the  proposal  for  a conference. 

The  Quadrilateral  of  the  Episcopal  Church  called  forth 
a corresponding  declaration  from  the  General  Convention 
of  the  Disciples  of  Christ  in  1890.  In  its  report  the  Com- 
mittee on  Church  Union  “proposed  to  unite  the  divided 

7This  Declaration,  with  slight  modification,  was  adopted  by  the 
Lambeth  Conference  of  the  English  Church  in  1888.  The  articles 
are  now  known  as  the  Chicago-Lambeth  Quadrilateral.  The 
most  recent  and  most  significant  Anglican-Episcopal  statement 
is  that  of  the  1920  Lambeth  Conference.  It  is  printed  in  full 
as  Appendix  III  of  this  report. 


252 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


people  of  God”  on  the  following  bases:  “(i)  The  original 
creed  of  Christ’s  Church;  (2)  the  ordinances  of  His  ap- 
pointment; (3)  the  life  which  has  the  sinless  Son  of  man 
as  its  perfect  exemplification.” 

The  Presbyterian  Church  through  a committee  entered 
into  negotiations  with  a committee  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  after  publication  of  the  Quadrilateral  in  1886. 
The  Presbyterian  committee  took  the  ground  that  they 
could  not  continue  negotiations  for  union  unless  each 
party  recognized  the  ministry  of  the  other  as  on  equal 
terms.  In  1896  the  Northern  General  Assembly  sus- 
pended correspondence  with  the  Episcopal  commission, 
until  it  might  “be  reopened  by  the  acceptance  by  that 
church  of  the  doctrine  of  ‘mutual  recognition  and  reci- 
procity.’ ” 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  prepared  to  negotiate 
union  only  in  one  way,  as  expressed  in  the  words  of  Car- 
dinal Gibbons:  “Jesus  Christ  has  pointed  out  the  only 
means  by  which  this  unity  can  be  brought  about  and 
maintained,  namely,  the  recognition  of  Peter  and  his  suc- 
cessors as  the  Head  of  the  Church.” 

The  Oriental  Orthodox  Catholic  Church  is  in  close 
sympathy  with  the  Lambeth  Quadrilateral.  It  submits 
two  conditions  for  the  reunion  of  Christendom:  (1)  The 
catholic  teaching  of  the  undivided  Church  of  the  early 
centuries,  summarized  in  the  Nicene  Creed;  (2)  the 
restoration,  by  the  reformed  non-episcopal  churches,  of 
that  primitive  apostolic  hierarchy  of  bishops,  presbyters, 
and  deacons,  “rejected  and  repudiated  too  hastily  by  their 
Puritan  forefathers.” 

None  of  these  plans  of  union  have  been  accepted  by  the 
churches  generally,  though  they  have  been  courteously  re- 
ceived and  considered.  Each  church  has  practically  in- 
vited the  other  churches  to  unite  with  it,  to  share  its 
priceless  heritage  and  to  accept  its  distinctive  character- 
istics, which  as  a rule  were  most  objectionable  to  the 
founders  of  the  other  churches.  Experience  clearly 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  253 


teaches  us  that  union  in  this  way,  the  way  of  compromise, 
would  be  bought  at  too  dear  a price  and  would  be  a loss 
instead  of  a gain.  It  would  be  a union  by  betrayal,  in- 
stead of  a union  by  mutual  growth  in  a more  comprehen- 
sive conception  of  Christianity. 

Another  way  of  union  has  been  followed  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  nineteenth  century — that  is,  by  alliance  or 
federation.  Its  purpose  is  to  abolish  the  vices  of  sec- 
tarianism and  to  preserve  the  virtues  of  denominational- 
ism,  to  recover  united  action  without  losing  individual 
and  group  freedom. 

The  earliest  form  of  this  type  of  union  was  the 
Evangelical  Alliance,  organized  in  England  in  1846  and 
in  the  United  States  in  1867.  Churches  of  the  same  fam- 
ily have  also  entered  into  alliance.  One  of  the  most 
notable  is  “The  Alliance  of  the  Reformed  Churches  hold- 
ing the  Presbyterian  System  throughout  the  world.”  The 
most  comprehensive  and  effective  federation,  including 
more  than  thirty  denominations,  is  the  “Federal  Council 
of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America,”  in  existence  since 
1908.  More  recently  missionary  and  educational  agencies 
of  the  evangelical  churches  of  the  United  States  under- 
took for  a time  a plan  for  cooperative  survey  and  effort 
known  as  “The  Interchurch  World  Movement  of  North 
America.” 

Since  the  close  of  the  World  War,  and  because  of  the 
spirit  of  unity  and  cooperation  which  it  inspired  in  men 
of  all  creeds,  parties,  and  classes,  a deep  longing  has  been 
felt  in  many  quarters  for  closer  union  of  the  churches 
than  that  of  alliance,  council,  or  federation.  It  has  found 
expression  in  an  invitation  of  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  U.  S.  A.  to  the  evangel- 
ical churches  in  the  United  States  to  a conference  on 
organic  union.  Two  such  conferences  were  held,  in 
1918  and  1920  respectively.  A Plan  of  Union  has  been 
formulated  and  is  now  before  the  supreme  judicatories 
of  the  evangelical  churches  for  final  disposition. 


254 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


From  this  historical  survey  it  would  seem  that  we  might 
fairly  draw  the  following  conclusions: 

1.  The  apostolic  ideal  of  unity  in  diversity  symbolized 
by  the  human  body  with  many  members  has  not  yet  been 
realized.  The  Catholic  Church  has  gained  uniformity  but 
has  lost  diversity.  The  Protestant  Churches  have  won 
diversity  but  have  tended  to  lose  unity.  Neither  Cath- 
olic nor  Protestant  can  claim  unity  in  diversity. 

2.  The  scope  of  the  attempts  at  union  has  ranged 
widely,  including  reunion  of  divisions  in  the  same  denom- 
ination, union  of-  churches  of  the  same  family,  union  of 
all  the  evangelical  churches  in  one  country  or  in  the 
world,  union  of  all  the  churches,  Catholic  and  Protestant, 
throughout  the  world.  So  far  success  has  been  limited  to 
the  healing  of  schisms  within  denominations,  the  reunion 
of  churches  of  the  same  family,  and  the  loose  federation 
of  evangelical  churches  generally. 

3.  Thus  far  the  most  fruitful  form  of  union  has  been 
the  alliance,  council,  or  federation,  with  a view  to  coop- 
eration in  the  work  of  Christ. 

4.  Whatever  form  of  union  may  be  proposed  in  the 
future  must  make  provision  at  the  same  time  for  the  free- 
dom of  the  individual  and  the  group,  and  for  the  collec- 
tive action  of  the  constituent  bodies  in  aggressive  and 
defensive  work.  In  the  language  of  the  Encyclical  Letter 
of  the  Anglican  Bishops  in  1908:  “We  must  consequently 
desire  not  combination  but  comprehension,  not  uniform- 
ity but  unity.” 

5.  Organic  union,  if  it  is  to  be  attained  at  all,  can  be 
reached  not  on  the  basis  of  the  faith  and  order  of  any 
single  church,  but  must  be  effected  by  the  power  of  a 
conception  of  Christianity  so  comprehensive  that  it  will 
logically  unite.  Clearly  such  union  cannot  come  by 
reversion  to  the  doctrines,  polity,  or  cultus  of  any  one  of 
the  churches,  nor  even  by  the  proposal  of  a new  form  of 
faith  and  order.  Organic  union  is  unthinkable  save  as 
it  comes  by  organic  process,  not  by  mere  legislative  ac- 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  255 


tion.  A new  organism  must  evolve,  taking  into  itself 
all  the  essential  Christian  elements  of  all  the  old  denom- 
inations and  eliminating  their  ephemeral  historic  forms. 
Denominational  names  represent  groups  which,  with 
more  or  less  success,  have  attempted  in  different  ways 
to  express  in  intellectual  and  institutional  forms  the  com- 
mon evangelical  experience  of  God  in  Christ.  Each  of 
them  has  only  relatively  succeeded  and  so  far  each  has 
relatively  failed.  When  we  have  a deeper  and  broader 
experience  of  the  changeless  evangelical  realities  that  we 
hold  in  common,  our  ecclesiastical  forms  and  formulas 
may  be  found  inadequate  and  irksome,  and  we  may  be  pre- 
pared to  lay  them  aside  as  garments  that  are  then  out- 


grown. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


UNDENOMINATIONAL  MOVEMENTS  IN  THE 
UNITED  STATES 

While  the  natural  development  of  Christianity  since 
the  Reformation  has  for  the  most  part  taken  the  form 
of  denominational  activity  and  expansion,  this  has  not 
been  the  only  method  by  which  the  religious  spirit  has 
manifested  itself.  The  shattering  of  formal  church  unity, 
following  the  activities  of  Martin  Luther  and  other  lead- 
ers in  the  quest  for  freedom  of  conscience,  led  inevitably 
to  a growing  variety  of  denominational  units  and  forms 
of  worship  and  work.  To  a notable  extent  through  the 
earlier  generations  of  the  post-Reformation  period  the 
Christian  impulse  was  confined  to  these  denominational 
expressions  and  even  to  the  present  time  they  form  the 
leading  examples  of  the  religious  interest.  A great  prob- 
lem now  confronting  organized  Christianity  is  the  sub- 
ordination of  the  ambitions  and  objectives  of  any  sep- 
arate parts  of  the  Church  to  the  general  progress  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  in  the  world.  The  clearer  emergence 
of  this  dominating  interest  stimulates  the  growing  desire 
for  coordination  and  unity  wherever  possible  among 
these  otherwise  divergent  and  even  rival  denominational 
movements. 

Yet  it  is  not  alone  in  the  growth  of  cordiality  and  coop- 
eration among  the  denominations  that  the  spirit  of  good 
will  has  been  exhibited.  Quite  apart  from  conscious  in- 
terdenominational effort,  many  movements  intended  to 
promote  the  religious  life  and  practical  Christian  service 
have  taken  form  independently,  and  have  contributed 
greatly  to  the  achievement  of  cooperative  ends.  Al- 
most numberless  when  viewed  in  detail  are  the  ex- 
amples of  this  unifying  spirit.  In  a summary  as  brief 

256 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  257 


as  the  present  one  it  Is  possible  to  mention  but  a few 
of  them.  The  mere  enumeration  of  these  few  will  sug- 
gest to  the  student  of  modern  religious  history  a multi- 
tude of  similar  agencies,  and  will  serve  to  illustrate  in 
how  many  ways  the  Spirit  of  God  has  moved  upon  the 
hearts  of  His  people  in  bringing  about  that  unity  of 
sentiment  and  that  coordination  of  effort  which  lie  in 
areas  beyond  the  dividing  lines  of  denominationalism. 
The  movements  chosen  for  brief  consideration  in  this 
section  are  such  well  known  agencies  as  the  Young  Men’s 
Christian  Association,  The  Young  Women’s  Christian 
Association,  The  Student  Movement,  The  Evangelical 
Alliance,  The  Stewardship  Movement,  The  Laymen’s 
Movement,  the  Young  People’s  Movement,  the  great  re- 
vivals, and  the  more  outstanding  practical  social  reforms. 

Two  aspects  of  these  undenominational  movements 
attract  attention  as  soon  as  they  are  studied  in  perspec- 
tive. The  one  is  the  fact  that,  like  most  other  religious 
and  social  impulses  that  have  taken  form  during  the  past 
two  centuries,  many  have  had  their  inception  to  a certain 
extent  in  European  lands,  especially  Great  Britain,  and 
have  attained  a later  and  a somewhat  different  develop- 
ment in  America.  This  is  true  of  the  revival  movement, 
the  Evangelical  Alliance,  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  As- 
sociation, and  several  of  the  efforts  in  behalf  of  social 
reform.  Others  of  these  agencies  have  owed  little  to 
European  influence,  and  some  have  been  exclusively  of 
American  origin.  But  in  all  cases  they  are  examples  of 
that  growing  sentiment  of  cooperative  good  will  which 
has  resulted,  even  when  not  consciously  so  intended,  in  re- 
pairing some  of  the  damage  wrought  by  the  centrifugal 
tendencies  that  separated  Christians  into  a multitude  of 
isolated  groups  after  the  Reformation. 

An  important  aspect  of  this  effort  to  include  men  of 
like  spirit  in  worthful  Christian  enterprises  is  the  gradual 
transfer  of  emphasis  in  many  of  these  movements  from 
the  more  strictly  spiritual  concerns  of  conversion,  faith, 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


258 

devotion,  and  the  stimulation  of  the  holy  life,  to  the  prac- 
tical phases  of  Christianity,  such  as  missionary  expan- 
sion, efficiency  in  church  ministries,  social  service  in  the 
name  of  religion,  and  the  overthrow  of  the  great  unsocial 
forces  that  plague  the  world.  Some  of  these  movements 
are  characterized  almost  wholly  by  the  first  motive,  like 
the  great  revivals  and  the  Evangelical  Alliance  during 
almost  its  entire  course.  Others,  like  the  Young  Men’s 
Christian  Association,  the  Stewardship  Movement,  the 
Laymen’s  and  the  Student  Movements,  began  with  em- 
phasis on  faith  and  devotion,  but  came  later  to  recog- 
nize the  importance  of  practical  Christian  ministries  as 
an  expression  of  the  inner  life  of  holiness.  Others  still, 
like  the  Young  Women’s  Christian  Association  and  the 
great  reforms,  dominated  as  truly  by  the  spirit  of  devo- 
tion to  the  spiritual  life,  have  sought  from  the  outset  to 
meet  the  practical  problems  of  particular  groups  in  the 
social  order  with  a ministry  of  helpfulness. 

In  studying  the  entire  movement  toward  a closer  coor- 
dination of  Christian  forces  one  is  impressed  with 
the  conviction  that  perhaps  as  much  has  been  accom- 
plished by  these  attempts  to  bring  Christians  of  differ- 
ent names  together  for  various  worthful  purposes,  even 
when  the  problem  of  unity  was  not  consciously  or  only 
semi-consciously  in  mind,  as  by  the  more  formal  and  am- 
bitious attempts  to  unify  creed,  ritual,  and  organization 
for  the  attainment  of  the  longed-for  unity  of  the  Church. 
At  least  they  have  had  a value  which  must  be  assessed 
with  due  appreciation  in  the  final  account. 

1.  The  Revival  Movements 

The  revival,  in  its  more  general  features,  is  not  of 
modern  origin.  Probably  there  have  been  few  periods  in 
the  history  of  the  Church  in  which  something  correspond- 
ing in  a broad  manner  to  this  form  of  Christian  interest 
has  not  had  a part  in  the  program  of  the  Church.  Waves 
of  religious  fervor  have  swept  over  Christian  lands,  and 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  259 


those  only  partially  Christianized,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
widespread  terror  and  conversions  at  the  approach  of 
what  was  supposed  to  be  the  end  of  the  world  in  the  year 
1000  A.  D. ; the  Crusades,  which  in  many  aspects  were 
revivals  of  religion  in  spite  of  their  brutal  and  futile 
features;  the  mass  conversions  wrought  by  missionaries 
like  Xavier  in  the  Middle  Ages ; the  sweeping  effects  of 
the  work  of  Whitefield  and  Wesley  in  Britain  and  Amer- 
ica ; the  great  Christian  movement  in  Korea  in  the  open- 
ing years  of  the  present  century;  and  the  still  more  recent 
manifestation  of  the  same  spirit  in  Wales. 

The  unifying  effects  of  movements  of  this  character, 
whether  local  or  extensive,  cannot  be  doubted.  A com- 
mon spirit  pervades  the  entire  population  subject  to  the 
prevailing  influence.  The  outstanding  features  of  the 
enterprise  become  a common  interest.  Differences  for- 
merly prevailing  among  those  who  are  under  the  spell 
of  the  enthusiasm  fade  out.  Where  the  fervor  of  the 
religious  appeal  is  deeply  and  widely  felt,  even  denom- 
inational variations  cease  to  have  significance.  It  is  true, 
of  course,  that  where  the  influence  of  the  revival  is  felt 
only  in  a limited  area,  the  prejudices  of  class  and  sect 
are  frequently  intensified.  In  most  instances,  however, 
the  great  revivals  have  clearly  had  a unifying  effect. 

The  spirit  of  the  revival  came  naturally  to  America 
from  the  parent  lands.  Such  displays  of  emotional  zeal 
in  behalf  of  the  religious  life  were  not  unknown  in  Great 
Britain  and  on  the  Continent  in  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries.  Yet  it  was  in  America  that  the 
foundation  was  laid  for  the  entire  modern  enterprise  of 
revivalism.  The  preaching  of  Jonathan  Edwards  in 
Northampton,  Massachusetts,  began  to  attract  wide  atten- 
tion about  the  year  1734.  It  was  clear,  thoughtful,  stir- 
ring, marked  by  little  of  the  emotional,  and  was  strik- 
ingly  effective  in  bringing  men  and  women  to  the  accept- 
ance of  the  Christian  life.  Its  influence  was  widespread 
and  stimulating.  It  made  a strong  appeal  to  the  minds 


26o 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


of  the  New  England  colonists,  who  were  essentially  reli- 
gious, but  in  many  cases  had  suffered  the  loss  of  the 
higher  qualities  of  Christianity  through  the  influence  of 
sectarianism  or  indifference.  It  arrested  the  decline  of 
faith,  and  was  of  notable  value  in  organizing  anew  a 
standard  of  religious  conviction  and  behavior. 

The  influence  of  Edwards  was  not  confined  to  New 
England  or  even  America.  The  accounts  of  his  work 
were  effective  in  awakening  new  interest  in  evangelism 
in  Great  Britain.  In  a very  true  sense  Whitefield  and 
Wesley  were  both  stimulated  by  his  example.  In  per- 
sonal characteristics  and  method  they  differed  greatly 
from  him,  but  they  had  the  same  passion  for  the  con- 
version of  men  and  women  to  the  life  of  faith.  Their 
appeal  was  made  with  intense  power  and  persuasiveness. 
Great  multitudes  gathered  to  listen  to  their  preaching  of 
the  Gospel.  The  Great  Awakening,  as  it  was  called,  was 
the  result  in  large  measure  of  the  message  of  Whitefield. 
In  many  instances  those  curious  physical  manifestations 
of  emotional  excitement,  associated  with  great  religious 
gatherings  from  the  days  of  the  apostles,  were  in  evi- 
dence. By  many,  and  apparently  by  the  preachers  them- 
selves, they  were  regarded  as  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of 
God.  The  methods,  and  in  some  measure  the  results,  of 
these  revival  efforts  were  carried  out  into  wider  regions 
by  many  preachers  of  the  various  denominations. 

A very  notable  revivalistic  movement  had  its  origin  in 
Kentucky  and  Tennessee  at  the  opening  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  an  outstanding  figure  being  Barton  W.  Stone. 
It  reached  its  height  of  interest  and  excitement  in  August, 
1801,  at  Cane  Ridge,  Kentucky.  People  came  long  dis- 
tances to  attend  the  great  gatherings.  The  physical  man- 
ifestations prevailed  to  a marked  degree.  A profound 
impression  was  made  upon  the  entire  region  by  the  meet- 
ings. The  preaching  was  biblical  and  practical.  Out  of 
these  evangelistic  efforts  at  least  two  important  religious 
movements  had  their  organizing  impulse,  the  Cumberland 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  261 


Presbyterian  and  the  Christian,  the  latter  of  which  was 
specifically  marked  by  an  interest  in  Christian  unity.1 

Another  important  figure  in  the  history  of  American 
revivalism  is  President  Charles  G.  Finney,  whose  work  at 
Oberlin  was  the  center  of  great  evangelistic  impulses  and 
to  whom  was  due  in  large  degree  the  widespread  revival 
of  1857  and  1858.  In  this  series  of  ingatherings  many 
of  the  ideals  of  later  evangelistic  effort  appeared,  such  as 
the  organization  of  valuable  prayer  circles,  the  closer 
fellowship  of  members  of  various  churches  in  the  com- 
mon task  of  winning  others  to  Christ,  and  the  discovery 
of  the  importance  of  women’s  ministries  in  connection 
with  such  work. 

Probably  the  name  best  known  in  the  history  of  modern 
evangelism  is  that  of  Dwight  L.  Moody.  During  the  sev- 
enth and  eighth  decades  of  the  last  century  he  was  one  of 
the  most  familiar  figures  in  the  religious  life  of  America 
and  Great  Britain.  A layman,  who  abandoned  a business 
career  to  devote  himself  increasingly  to  the  task  of  evan- 
gelism, he  became  a leader  in  the  field  of  revivalism,  hold- 
ing great  meetings  in  most  of  the  larger  cities  of  the 
United  States  and  Canada,  and  making  frequent  trips  to 
England  and  Scotland  with  the  same  urgent  and  winsome 
message.  Out  of  these  directly  evangelistic  activities  grew 
the  institutions  at  Mt.  Hermon,  Northfield,  and  Chicago 
which  have  had  as  their  purpose  the  perpetuation  of  his 
spirit  and  ideals.  The  last  years  of  Mr.  Moody’s  life 
were  devoted  to  a considerable  extent  to  evangelistic 
institutes  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  less  for  the 
purposes  of  direct  revivalism  than  for  the  stimulation 
of  the  spirit  of  evangelism  in  the  ministry  and  the 
churches. 

In  recent  years  the  work  of  revivalism  has  taken  two 
divergent  forms.  The  men  who  have  followed  the  voca- 
tion of  evangelists  have  developed  a very  efficient  tech- 

’For  certain  divisive  aspects  of  some  of  these  revivals,  see 
pp.  240-241. 


262 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


nique,  and  for  a time  the  groups  of  those  called  into 
service  about  the  persons  of  men  of  striking  success  in 
this  field  came  to  be  sizable,  and  their  methods  very  sys- 
tematic and  efficient.  Campaigns  extending  over  months 
of  time  were  not  infrequent,  and  converts  in  great  num- 
bers were  brought  into  the  churches.  Increasingly,  how- 
ever, as  the  values  of  religious  education  have  found  rec- 
ognition, the  more  picturesque  and  professional  forms  of 
revivalism  have  yielded  among  the  churches  to  a vital 
concern  for  a more  constant  and  fundamental  type  of 
evangelism,  pastoral,  educational,  persistent.  This  move- 
ment recognizes  as  truly  as  the  other  the  essential  place 
of  evangelism  in  the  Church,  and  the  immeasurable  sig- 
nificance of  the  service  rendered  to  Christianity  by  the 
great  revivalists.  But  it  is  taking  increasing  account  of 
the  pervasive  and  universal  character  of  true  evangelism, 
and  particularly  the  religious  education  of  children  and 
young  people,  as  the  function  of  every  minister  and  every 
congregation  at  all  seasons  of  the  year. 

The  unifying  values  of  these  evangelistic  activities, 
whether  of  the  revivalistic  or  the  educational  type,  are 
obvious.  A great  common  concern  lays  hold  of  the 
churches  and  minimizes  the  divisive  factors.  Experience 
has  demonstrated  the  fact  that  today  no  interest  is  more 
likely  to  stimulate  the  cooperative  spirit  in  a community 
than  the  development  of  a genuine,  community- wide  en- 
thusiasm for  the  preaching  of  the  Christian  message  and 
the  extension  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  is  of  no  small 
significance  that  the  most  unifying  aspect  of  the  work 
of  interchurch  federations  in  the  present  day,  as  noted 
elsewhere  in  this  report,  is  their  program  of  evangelism.2 

II.  The  Evangelical  Alliance 

The  growth  of  missionary  interest  in  the  eighteenth 
century,  with  the  various  though  modest  forms  of  cooper- 
ation attempted  in  the  furtherance  of  that  cause,  and  the 


2Cf.,  pp.  1 20- 1 22  of  this  report. 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  263 


inception  and  strengthening  of  the  tract  societies  and 
other  Christian  agencies,  suggested  the  possibility  of  in- 
terdenominational effort  among  Protestants  on  a much 
wider  scale.  The  sentiment  that  there  were  much  more 
extensive  areas  of  cooperative  activity  than  had  yet  been 
cultivated  led  to  repeated  conferences  of  those  interested. 
At  length  in  August,  1846,  after  careful  preparation,  a 
gathering  was  held  in  London,  with  eight  hundred  repre- 
sentatives present  from  fifty  different  evangelical  bodies 
in  Europe  and  America.  At  this  meeting  an  organization 
was  perfected  and  the  name  “The  Evangelical  Alliance” 
was  adopted.  Branches  were  to  be  organized  throughout 
the  world,  on  an  independent  though  cooperating  basis. 
Very  soon  such  branches  were  established  in  France, 
Germany,  Switzerland,  Holland,  Sweden,  Denmark,  Italy, 
Hungary,  Greece,  the  United  States  and  Canada,  and  in 
the  missionary  lands  of  Japan  and  India.  Naturally  the 
British  branch  had  a certain  priority  and  precedence  in 
the  movement,  though  the  other  national  organizations, 
especially  that  in  the  United  States,  attained  encouraging 
strength  and  efficiency. 

The  objects  of  the  Alliance  as  stated  in  the  constitution 
adopted  at  the  London  meeting  were:  To  promote  evan- 
gelical union  with  a view  to  greater  success  in  Christian 
activity;  to  maintain  and  exhibit  the  essential  unity  of  the 
Church  of  Christ;  to  counteract  the  influence  of  infidelity 
and  superstition,  especially  in  their  organized  form ; to 
assist  the  cause  of  religious  freedom  everywhere;  to  hold 
up  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Word  of  God ; to  urge 
observance  of  the  Lord’s  Day;  to  arrest  the  immoral 
habits  of  society;  and  to  act  as  a bureau  of  information 
and  suggestion.  The  Alliance  put  itself  on  record  as  de- 
siring to  avoid  dogmatic  or  legislative  utterances,  and  to 
endeavor  to  preserve  the  unity  of  the  spirit.  As  a further 
interpretation  of  the  sentiment  of  this  initial  gathering, 
the  following  may  be  quoted  from  its  declaration  of  prin- 
ciples: “We  have  no  intention  or  desire  to  give  rise  to  a 


264 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


new  denomination  or  sect,  nor  to  effect  a new  amalgama- 
tion of  churches,  except  in  the  way  of  facilitating  personal 
Christian  intercourse,  and  a mutual  good  understanding; 
nor  to  interfere  in  any  way  whatever  with  the  internal 
affairs  of  the  various  denominations;  but  simply  to  bring 
individual  Christians  into  closer  fellowship  and  coopera- 
tion on  the  basis  of  the  spiritual  union  which  already  ex- 
ists in  the  vital  relation  of  Christ  to  the  members  of  His 
body  in  all  ages  and  all  countries.” 

It  was  deemed  necessary,  however,  to  formulate  a doc- 
trinal basis  for  the  new  organization.  Therefore  a “sum- 
mary of  the  consensus  of  the  various  evangelical  confes- 
sions of  faith”  was  adopted  by  the  London  Conference, 
embracing  the  following  items:  (1)  The  divine  inspira- 
tion, authority,  and  sufficiency  of  the  Holy  Scriptures ; 
(2)  The  right  and  duty  of  private  judgment  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Holy  Scriptures;  (3)  The  unity  of  the 
Godhead,  and  the  trinity  of  persons  therein;  (4)  The 
utter  depravity  of  human  nature  in  consequence  of  the 
Fall;  (5)  The  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  His  work 
of  atonement  for  sinners  of  mankind,  and  His  mediatorial 
intercession  and  reign;  (6)  The  justification  of  the  sinner 
by  faith  alone;  (7)  The  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
conversion  and  sanctification  of  the  sinner;  (8)  The  im- 
mortality of  the  soul,  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  the 
judgment  of  the  world  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  with  the 
eternal  blessedness  of  the  righteous  and  the  eternal  pun- 
ishment of  the  wicked;  (9)  The  divine  institution  of  the 
Christian  ministry,  and  the  obligation  and  perpetuity  of 
the  ordinances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper.  This 
summary  was  regarded  as  important  “as  an  indication  of 
the  class  of  persons  whom  it  is  desirable  to  embrace  with- 
in the  Alliance.” 

It  was  the  plan  that  each  of  the  branches  of  the  Alli- 
ance should  hold  meetings  annually,  or  as  frequently  as 
possible,  and  that  all  should  unite  in  a general  confer- 
ence once  in  four  or  five  years.  General  conferences  were 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  265 


held  in  London,  1851;  Paris,  1855;  Berlin,  1857;  Geneva, 
1861;  Amsterdam,  1867;  New  York,  1873;  Basel,  1879; 
Copenhagen,  1884;  Florence,  1891;  London,  1896  and 
1907,  eleven  in  all.  Three  lines  of  activity  were  followed : 
the  holding  of  conferences,  sectional  and  general,  the 
promotion  of  the  Week  of  Prayer,  and  the  encourage- 
ment of  religious  liberty.  The  last-named  interest  was 
directed  to  the  championing  of  the  cause  of  those  who 
were  persecuted  for  conscience  sake,  like  the  Lutherans 
in  the  Baltic  provinces  which  belonged  formerly  to 
Sweden  and  Poland,  but  at  the  time  to  Russia.  In  this 
case  representations  were  made  by  several  of  the  national 
branches,  and  a deputation  from  the  United  States  visited 
Russia  in  1870  and  secured  the  promise  of  remedial  steps 
on  the  part  of  the  Government.  Successful  efforts  were 
also  made  by  the  Alliance  to  improve  the  condition  of 
Christians  in  Italy,  Spain,  and  Sweden.  In  the  mission 
fields  like  Japan  and  Turkey  influence  was  brought  to 
bear  on  the  government  to  accord  missionaries  more  con- 
siderate treatment. 

The  Evangelical  Alliance  for  the  United  States  was  not 
organized  until  January,  1867,  although  there  were  Amer- 
icans present  at  the  London  conference  of  1846  and  it 
had  been  planned  to  launch  the  American  branch  soon 
after  that  time.  The  objects  of  the  organization  were 
cooperation  with  the  other  branches  of  the  Alliance,  the 
strengthening  of  Christian  union  and  fellowship,  the 
effort  to  -counteract  infidelity  and  superstition,  and  the 
promotion  of  religious  liberty  throughout  the  world.  The 
first  official  act  of  the  American  branch  was  the  sending 
of  representatives  to  the  General  Conference  at  Amster- 
dam. Annual  and  sometimes  semi-annual  conferences 
were  held,  and  regular  reports  were  issued.  At  the  Am- 
sterdam meeting  the  American  representatives  invited  the 
Alliance  to  meet  in  New  York  in  1869.  This  date  was 
found  impossible  by  some  of  the  European  delegates,  and 
1870  was  agreed  upon.  Meantime,  however,  difficulties 


266 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


arose  over  questions  of  jurisdiction  and  authority,  and 
only  by  the  skillful  mediation  of  Dr.  Philip  Schaff,  who 
made  four  journeys  to  Europe  for  the  purpose,  was  the 
plan  carried  through.  The  conference  finally  met  in  New 
York  in  1873.  The  high  purpose  set  for  this  gathering 
was  “to  bring  Europe  and  America  together  in  Christ  for 
closer  union  and  fellowship,  for  a united  testimony 
against  unbelief  and  false  belief,  for  the  promotion  of 
peace  and  good  will  among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and 
for  the  encouragement  of  every  good  work  of  the  Mas- 
ter.” The  results  apparently  met  the  most  ardent  hopes. 

Notable  among  the  conferences  held  by  the  American 
Alliance  were  those  in  Washington  in  1887,  on  the  general 
subject  of  “National  Perils  and  Opportunities,”  with 
from  twelve  to  fifteen  hundred  delegates  in  attendance ; 
Boston  in  1889,  on  the  topic,  “National  Needs  and  Rem- 
edies,” with  some  five  hundred  delegates,  representing 
sixteen  denominations ; and  Chicago  in  1893,  a meeting 
which  was  one  of  the  leading  features  of  the  great  pro- 
gram of  the  World’s  Congress  Auxiliary  held  in  connec- 
tion with  the  World’s  Columbian  Exposition.  The  lead- 
ing theme  of  the  gathering  was  “Christianity  Practically 
Applied,”  particularly  in  international  relationships.  This 
meeting  brought  forth  expressions  of  surprise  and  admi- 
ration from  men  like  Lord  Kinnaird  and  Henry  Drum- 
mond as  the  most  significant  in  their  experience. 

Many  phases  of  cooperative  work  were  undertaken 
in  different  parts  of  the  country  under  the  auspices  of  the 
Evangelical  Alliance.  Among  them  were  efforts  to  pre- 
vent the  use  of  public  funds  for  sectarian  purposes,  the 
study  of  conditions  in  communities  where  there  was  dan- 
ger of  overlapping  among  the  churches,  the  conduct  of 
surveys  in  New  York  state  in  1890,  and  the  promotion  of 
city  and  town  alliances  to  serve  in  local  communities  the 
general  purposes  attempted  by  the  national  Alliance. 
These  achievements  were  much  more  important  at  that 
time  than  they  would  be  considered  at  present,  when  the 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  267 


cooperative  spirit  is  more  widely  realized.  It  was  a pio- 
neer effort  in  a great  cause.  It  was  the  beginning  of  many 
forms  of  unified  endeavor,  and  served  to  interpret  the 
sentiment  of  fellowship  to  all  the  denominations.  If  its 
limitations  are  perceived,  at  the  same  time  it  is  surpris- 
ing that  as  much  was  accomplished  as  the  record  shows. 

With  the  last  decade  of  the  century  the  work  of  the 
Evangelical  Alliance  in  the  United  States  declined,  and 
was  in  large  measure  superseded  by  other  agencies.  Its 
work  was  educational  and  in  a measure  preparatory.  The 
twenty  years  and  more  covered  by  this  movement  were  of 
the  greatest  value  to  the  churches.  In  1901  there  was 
formed  “The  Federation  of  Churches  and  Christian 
Workers,”  and  in  1908  “The  Federal  Council  of  the 
Churches  of  Christ  in  America”  came  into  being.  The 
spirit  and  values  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance  largely 
passed  over  into  these  new  and  more  modern  organiza- 
tions, especially  the  latter.  The  causes  of  the  decline  of 
the  Alliance  were  various,  including  the  financial  basis 
of  the  membership,  depending  upon  money  payments ; 
the  doctrinal  basis,  which  failed  to  appeal  to  a large  pro- 
portion of  the  friends  of  cooperation ; the  failure  to  pro- 
vide adequately  for  lay  influence  and  leadership ; and  the 
outgrowing  of  the  original  interest  of  the  movement 
in  the  matters  of  religious  liberty  and  superstition  as  at 
first  defined.3 

III.  The  Young  Men's  Christian  Association 

The  moral  and  spiritual  condition  of  the  nominally 
Christian  world  at  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury was  serious.  The  Napoleonic  wars  had  left  their 
disastrous  influence  upon  society.  Europe  was  paying 
the  penalty  which  all  times  of  war  exact.  In  Britain  infi- 

3For  full  accounts  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance  see  the  reports 
of  the  various  conferences,  especially  “Conference  on  Christian 
Union:  being  a narrative  of  the  proceedings  of  the  meetings 
held  in  Liverpool,  October,  1845,”  and  the  report  of  the  New 
York  meeting  in  1873. 


268 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


delity  and  social  unrest  were  everywhere  in  evidence.  The 
growth  of  city  life  and  the  new  interests  of  machinery 
drew  great  numbers  of  young  men  to  the  industrial  cen- 
ters. They  were  crowded  into  living  quarters  wholly 
strange  and  inadequate,  where  companionship  was  diffi- 
cult or  of  the  worst  character.  Dissipation  and  low  ideals 
were  the  constant  temptation.  No  suitable  provisions 
were  made  to  meet  the  new  emergency.  For  such  a situ- 
ation the  methods  of  the  churches  were  antiquated.  The 
home  of  Protestantism — whether  in  its  Anglican,  Puritan, 
or  Wesleyan  form — was  in  a state  of  moral  and  religious 
decline.  In  these  conditions  there  was  little  promise  of  in- 
spiring the  new  generation  of  young  men  with  a passion 
for  high  ideals  or  sacrificial  effort. 

But  it  is  the  nature  of  Christianity  to  disclose  new  evi- 
dences of  its  potency  at  the  very  moments  when  it  appears 
most  in  danger  of  collapse.  A vital  organism  puts  forth 
fresh  manifestations  of  life  in  the  times  of  need.  It  is 
this  quality  of  self-renewal  which  makes  Christianity  the 
wonder  of  history.  At  the  period  of  which  we  are  speak- 
ing sources  of  power  were  released  through  the  rise  of 
the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association,  with  George 
Williams  as  the  leader  of  the  great  movement. 

Soon  after  beginning  his  artisan  career  as  a worker  in  a 
drapery  establishment  at  Bridgewater  at  the  age  of  fif- 
teen, he  was  converted,  and  from  the  first  took  very  seri- 
ously the  obligations  of  the  Christian  life.  Engaging  in 
Sunday  school  work,  he  gathered  about  him  a small 
group,  only  two  or  three  at  first,  for  purposes  of  prayer 
and  conversation  on  religious  themes.  Not  content  with 
the  opportunities  which  the  town  afforded,  he  went  out  to 
neighboring  communities  and  held  meetings  to  which  any 
interested  persons  were  invited.  In  1841,  now  twenty 
years  old,  he  went  up  from  the  provinces  to  London,  and 
became  a junior  assistant  in  an  establishment  near  St. 
Paul’s  in  Ludgate  Hill.  It  was  a notable  year,  for  the 
Oxford  Movement  was  then  in  the  height  of  its  power; 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  26 9 


but  the  life  of  the  young  manhood  of  the  various  trades 
seemed  in  no  degree  touched  by  the  forces  of  religion  or 
morals.  In  the  mercantile  house  of  Hitchcock  and  Rogers 
Williams  found  more  than  eighty  clerks,  whose  hours 
were  long  and  whose  pleasures  were  few  and  of  the  least 
uplifting  nature.  It  was  not  easy  in  the  atmosphere  of 
the  shop  and  in  the  unsatisfactory  living  quarters  to 
maintain  a life  of  ideals,  much  less  to  influence  others  to 
the  same  purpose.  But  with  the  energy  and  fervor  of 
his  Bridgewater  days  he  went  among  the  boys  of  the  es- 
tablishment and  gradually  gathered  a group  that  devel- 
oped into  a prayer  company,  a Bible  class,  a missionary 
society  on  a modest  scale,  and  the  beginnings  of  a liter- 
ary club. 

The  influence  of  Finney’s  message  on  Williams  during 
this  period  was  definitive  and  inspiring.  He  read  his 
“Letters  to  Professing  Christians’’  and  “Lectures  on  Re- 
vivals,” and  found  in  them  suggestion  and  encouragement 
for  the  great  enterprise  that  was  beginning  to  take  form 
in  his  mind.  He  took  his  employer,  Mr.  Hitchcock,  into 
his  confidence  about  his  plans  for  the  young  men  of  the 
establishment,  and  secured  from  him  not  only  the  prom- 
ise of  larger  quarters  for  the  meetings,  but  his  own  per- 
sonal enlistment  in  the  Christian  life.  Not  content  with 
the  movement  as  it  was  taking  form  in  the  one  commercial 
house  in  which  he  was  employed,  he  arranged  to  extend 
the  enterprise  to  all  other  houses  in  the  same  line  of  bus- 
iness. On  June  6,  1844,  an  association  was  formed  with 
twelve  men  as  members,  and  the  name  given  to  it  of  “The 
Society  for  Improving  the  Spiritual  Condition  of  the 
Young  Men  Engaged  in  the  Drapery  and  Other  Trades.” 

Ampler  quarters  were  secured  for  the  growing  enter- 
prise in  a coffee  house  in  Ludgate  Hill  and  in  July  of  the 
same  year  letters  were  sent  to  a large  number  of  young 
men  in  London  to  acquaint  them  with  the  plans  of  the 
association.  A regular  series  of  fortnightly  meetings  was 
organized,  in  addition  to  the  group  meetings  for  prayer 


270 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


and  Bible  study.  Evangelistic  services  were  soon  started 
in  Sargeant’s  Inn  and  about  the  same  time  Christopher 
Smith,  one  of  Williams’s  most  consecrated  associates, 
proposed  that  the  enlarged  enterprise  should  be  called 
the  “Young  Men’s  Christian  Association,”  by  which  name 
it  has  been  known  ever  since. 

The  growth  of  the  movement  was  rapid  and  consistent. 
In  November  of  the  same  year  a young  man  was  selected 
as  assistant  secretary  and  missionary,  the  first  of  that 
great  company  of  employed  workers  in  the  Association. 
Into  all  parts  of  Great  Britain  the  work  was  carried  and 
Associations  organized.  In  December,  1851,  the  first 
beginnings  were  made  in  the  United  States,  with  the  or- 
ganization of  an  Association  at  Boston,  which  numbered 
1,200  in  its  membership  the  first  year.  Like  other  move- 
ments which  have  been  named,  beginning  in  Great  Brit- 
ain and  coming  later  to  this  country,  it  here  found  instant 
recognition  and  welcome  as  one  of  the  most  effective 
forces  for  the  enlistment  and  training  of  boys  and  men  in 
Christian  service.  From  the  first  it  has  been  largely  a lay- 
man’s movement,  though  ministers  have  had  no  inconsider- 
able part  in  its  activities.  Its  fourfold  program  of  physi- 
cal, intellectual,  social,  and  religious  instruction  and  activ- 
ity has  stimulated  the  young  men  of  multitudes  of  com- 
munities to  the  attainment  of  nobler  things.  For  though  it 
began  as  a purely  religious  institution,  for  the  promotion 
of  the  life  of  faith  and  prayer  among  young  men,  it  has 
added  to  its  plans  the  practical  and  efficient  ministries  of 
applied  Christianity  in  all  social  and  redemptive  service. 
This  is  in  entire  keeping  with  the  ideals  of  service  which 
modern  Christianity  has  been  concerned  to  affirm  and 
illustrate,  and  is  no  less  the  expression  of  the  spirit  of 
Christ  than  are  the  more  formal  aspects  of  church 
activity.4 

‘For  a full  account  of  the  Y M C A in  this  country  see  Richard 
C.  Morse,  “History  of  the  North  American  Young  Men’s  Chris- 
tian Associations,”  New  York,  1913. 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  271 


It  is  inevitable  that  a work  of  this  character,  now  no 
longer  confined  to  English-speaking  lands,  but  a mighty 
missionary  force  throughout  the  world,  should  operate  as 
an  aid  to  unity  of  religious  interests.  Men  of  all  Chris- 
tian creeds  have  joined  in  enthusiastic  commitment  to  the 
programs  of  the  Association  for  physical,  intellectual, 
social,  and  religious  betterment  and  therein  have  learned 
the  value  of  Christian  cooperation.  Its  activities  in  indus- 
trial centers,  in  railroad  groups,  in  educational  institutions, 
in  mercantile  circles,  and  wherever  manhood  is  employed, 
have  made  it  a vast  unifying  agency  for  moral  progress 
and  religious  improvement.  It  has  been  a great  helper  of 
the  churches  in  all  the  ministries  in  which  men  and  boys 
can  be  assisted  to  the  larger  life.  For  these  reasons  its 
value  as  a promoter  of  Christian  unity  is  beyond  ques- 
tion. It  has  been  able  to  serve  in  behalf  of  the  Church  in 
many  circumstances  in  which  the  churches  themselves, 
by  reason  of  their  divisions  or  limitations  of  their  pro- 
grams, were  unable  to  do  the  most  effective  work.5 6 

IV.  The  Young  Women’s  Christian  Association 

Among  the  papers  left  by  George  Williams  there  was 
found  an  outline  of  an  organization  for  women  similar 
to  that  of  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association.  This 
plan  was  probably  drafted  before  1850,  but  the  time  was 
not  yet  opportune  for  such  a movement.  In  the  fifties, 
however,  the  need  of  providing  some  sort  of  social  and 
religious  atmosphere  for  the  young  women  employed  in 
business  and  industry  stimulated  men  and  women  of  good 
will  in  various  parts  of  the  United  States  to  provide  suit- 
able homes  or  other  places  of  recreation  and  improve- 
ment. So  much  was  being  undertaken  in  behalf  of  young 
men  by  the  Association  that  something  of  like  nature  was 
felt  to  be  due  to  the  young  women  of  the  land. 

In  November,  1858,  a meeting  was  held  in  the  chapel 

5For  the  work  of  the  Y M C A and  its  relations  with  the 

churches  today,  see  pp.  123-132  of  this  report. 


272 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


of  the  University  of  New  York  and  an  organization 
formed  known  as  the  “Ladies’  Christian  Association,” 
for  the  purpose  of  providing  needed  opportunities  for 
social  life,  instruction,  employment,  and  recreation  to 
young  women  away  from  home  in  cities-.  The  first 
“branch”  was  formed  in  1859  in  Boston  and  in  the  fol- 
lowing year  a house  was  opened  for  those  ministries 
which  have  since  become  so  definite  a part  of  the  program 
of  the  institution.  These  included  a restaurant,  an  em- 
ployment bureau,  a loan  library,  a program  of  social  and 
religious  activities,  a Sunday  afternoon  Bible  class,  a 
Thursday  prayer  meeting,  a monthly  missionary  meeting, 
and  open  and  cordial  hospitality.  This  became  the  stand- 
ard of  activities  for  the  other  houses  that  were  opened. 
By  1861  there  were  four  such  centers. 

But  it  was  not  until  1866  that  the  Boston  organization 
took  the  name  of  the  “Young  Women’s  Christian  Asso- 
ciation,” with  the  declared  purpose  of  promoting  the 
“temporal,  moral,  and  religious  welfare  of  young  women 
dependent  on  their  own  exertions  for  support.”  The  basis 
of  membership  was  that  “any  Christian  woman  who  is  a 
member  in  regular  standing  of  an  evangelical  church  may 
become  an  active  member  of  this  Association.”  The 
movement  spread  rapidly  over  the  United  States.  In 
1867  the  Pittsburg  Association  was  formed,  and  enter- 
tained the  third  annual  conference  of  the  Young  Women’s 
Christian  Associations.  In  1868  similar  branches  were 
formed  in  Cincinnati,  Cleveland,  and  St.  Louis.  From 
that  time  onward  it  was  only  necessary  for  the  enterprise 
to  be  interpreted  to  secure  entrance  into  all  alert  com- 
munities. The  standard  activities  have  continued,  varied 
as  local  conditions  demand.  One  of  the  most  important 
departments  of  the  organization  is  its  student  section, 
represented  in  nearly  all  the  institutions  of  education  to 
which  women  have  access.6 


“For  a fuller  discussion  see  Elizabeth  Wilson,  “Fifty  Years  of 
Association  Work  among  Young  Women,”  New  York,  1916. 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  273 


To  a certain  degree  this  movement  has  repaid  the  serv- 
ices of  Great  Britain  to  America  in  the  matter  of  the 
inspiration  and  beginning  of  important  religious  projects. 
For  the  work  of  the  Young  Women’s  Christian  Associa- 
tion, even  before  it  received  that  name,  was  transferred 
to  Great  Britain,  or  at  any  rate  it  furnished  suggestion 
and  impulse  for  the  enlargement  of  a work  already  begun 
in  behalf  of  the  nurses  in  London.  Soon  after  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Boston  home  it  was  decided  to  enlarge 
the  scope  of  the  Home  for  Nurses  on  the  lines  later  fa- 
miliar under  the  direction  of  the  YWCA. 

So  convincing  has  been  the  program  of  the  Association 
that  it  has  gone  into  most  of  the  lands  in  which  Christian 
effort  has  been  expended.  In  1894  a World  Association 
was  formed,  with  the  United  States  and  several  European 
countries  as  members.  The  unifying  value  of  a work  so 
widely  distributed  and  so  effective  as  this  cannot  fail  to 
be  impressive.  Its  prayer  leagues  have  stressed  the  com- 
mon heritage  of  worship  in  the  lives  of  all  believers, 
without  regard  to  sex  or  creed  or  race.  Its  training 
schools  have  sent  forth  workers  imbued  with  a spirit  of 
united  service.  Its  ministries  of  human  helpfulness  have 
carried  to  multitudes  of  young  women,  in  industry  and 
in  college,  the  values  of  practical  Christianity  and  have 
been  another  living  proof  of  the  unfailing  vitality  and 
unity  of  the  Christian  faith.7 

V.  The  Student  Movement 

What  is  now  known  as  the-  Student  Movement  is  com- 
posed of  several  organizations,  through  all  of  which  there 
runs  a unity  of  purpose  and  method  that  gives  them  the 
reality  as  well  as  the  appearance  of  being  one  great  enter- 
prise. There  are  three  major  organizations  which  consti- 
tute the  heart  of  the  movement,  the  Young  Men’s 
Christian  Association,  the  Young  Women’s  Christian  As- 

For  the  work  of  the  YWCA  during  the  war  and  its  rela- 
tion to  the  churches,  see  pp.  22  and  132-134  of  this  report. 


274 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


sociation,  and  the  Student  Volunteer  Movement.  The  first 
student  YMCA  was  formed  in  1858.  From  that  time 
on  scattering  Associations  were  formed  among  the  col- 
leges. In  1877  at  the  International  YMCA  Convention 
at  Louisville  the  student  members  discussed  the  possibil- 
ity of  a Christian  intercollegiate  movement,  which  was 
soon  after  organized  and  under  secretarial  direction 
spread  rapidly. 

The  purpose  of  the  Student  Young  Men’s  Christian 
Association  is  declared  to  be  “to  lead  students  to  become 
intelligent  and  loyal  disciples  of  Christ  as  their  Savior 
and  Lord ; to  help  them  in  their  encounter  with  the  temp- 
tations of  student  life;  to  build  up  strong  Christian  faith 
and  symmetrical  Christian  character ; to  train  them  in 
individual  and  associated  Christian  work  in  order  that 
they  may  be  useful  in  the  Church ; to  place  upon  them  a 
burden  of  responsibility  for  the  extension  and  upbuilding 
of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  throughout  the  world,  and  to 
influence  them  to  place  their  lives  where  they  can  best 
serve  their  generation.”  The  movement  includes  in  its 
field  all  universities  and  colleges,  theological  seminaries, 
law,  medical,  dental,  pharmaceutical,  agricultural,  and 
veterinary  colleges,  institutes  of  technology  and  engineer- 
ing, military  and  naval  academies,  normal  schools,  pre- 
paratory schools,  academies,  and  high  schools. 

The  student  Y W C A is  the  smallest  department  of 
the  International  Young  Women’s  Christian  Association. 
The  first  college  organization  of  this  nature  was  formed 
in  1872  in  the  Middle  West.  For  years  separate  state 
organizations  guided  the  student  work  among  women. 
Not  until  about  1910  did  the  International  YWCA 
undertake  supervision  and  form  a separate  department 
for  the  student  members.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that 
the  recent  controversy  in  the  YWCA  convention  at 
Cleveland  was  concerned  solely  with  the  student  depart- 
ment. An  alternative  basis  of  membership,  resting  upon 
profession  of  faith  in  Christ  rather  than  upon  church 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  275 


membership,  was  put  into  effect  in  this  department  be- 
cause it  was  felt  that  the  student  work  was  sometimes 
hindered  by  the  more  formal  standard  of  membership. 

The  Student  Volunteer  Movement  was  inspired  by  the 
leadership  of  Mr.  D.  L.  Moody  and  Luther  Wishard  as 
far  back  as  1886,  when  a conference  lasting  four  weeks 
was  held  at  Mt.  Hermon  for  Bible  study.  In  the  course 
of  this  conference  the  theme  of  missions  was  prominently 
presented.  Interest  in  the  subject  grew  rapidly  and  be- 
fore the  conference  ended  one  hundred  volunteers  had 
dedicated  themselves  to  missionary  tasks.  From  this  have 
grown  the  widespread  activities  and  values  of  the  Student 
Volunteer  Movement  until  it  has  become  a vital  force  in 
university  and  college  life.  Its  value  in  calling  forth  into 
missionary  service  men  and  women  who  have  become 
imbued  with  the  ideals  of  broad  Christian  fellowship  is 
immeasurable. 

The  World’s  Student  Christian  Federation,  organized 
in  1895,  aims  to  unite  the  three  student  Christian  move- 
ments in  various  lands  and  to  promote  relations  among 
them;  to  collect  information  regarding  religious  condi- 
tions among  students  in  all  lands ; to  promote  disciple- 
ship  and  deepened  spiritual  life  and  to  enlist  students  in 
the  extension  of  the  Kingdom.  The  student  movement 
as  a whole  shows  evidence  of  great  vitality  and  enthusi- 
asm. Much  has  been  done  to  safeguard  Christian  faith 
in  students  through  the  period  of  change  wrought  by  sci- 
entific and  philosophical  studies,  and  to  prepare  the  way 
for  new  developments  of  Christian  thought  and  service. 
Most  important  of  all,  perhaps,  is  the  unifying  effect  of 
the  movement  upon  the  future  of  the  Church,  bringing 
together,  as  it  does,  in  Christian  service  so  many  young 
men  and  women  who  are  to  become  leaders  in  the  Church. 
The  unifying  effects  of  this  type  of  interest  are  expressed 
in  the  following  statement  by  one  of  its  conspicuous  rep- 
resentatives: “The  world-wide  student  movement  has 
revealed  to  the  Christian  students  of  all  nations  and  races 


276 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


and  climes  with  greater  fullness  and  attractiveness  their 
oneness  in  Jesus  Christ.  It  has  emphasized  that  high 
over  all  the  peculiarities  and  differences  that  divide  us 
is  our  common  faith  and  above  all  our  common  Lord. 
In  the  ranks  in  the  colleges  and  theological  seminaries  are 
the  leaders  both  clerical  and  lay  of  the  Church  of  to- 
morrow. They  are  working  together  in  harmony  and 
sympathy  and  with  power  on  the  basis  of  agreement  on 
the  essentials  of  Christianity.  So  they  will  continue  to 
do  as  they  leave  college  walls.  This  already  presents  the 
most  telling  object  lesson  in  Christian  unity  that  the  world 
affords.  Never  after  the  years  of  Christian  fellowship 
and  associated  efforts  within  the  college  will  these  men 
cease  to  demonstrate  to  the  world  that  there  is  one  body 
and  one  spirit,  even  as  they  were  called  in  one  hope  of 
their  calling.”8 

VI.  Laymen's  and  Young  People’s  Movements 

The  strong  impulse  toward  greater  consecration  of 
life  and  greater  efficiency  in  church  activities  has  led  to 
the  inception  and  development  of  several  lay  enterprises 
of  a union  nature,  and  others  in  which  laymen  have  had 
at  least  a very  large  share.  These  were  in  large  measure 
the  result  of  the  conviction  that  the  ministries  of  the 
churches  are  confined  too  exclusively  to  the  clergy  and 
do  not  enlist  sufficiently  the  practical  business  experience 
of  men  who  are  equally  desirous  of  rendering  devoted 
and  united  service  to  the  Kingdom. 

A significant  movement  of  this  character  in  the  last 
century  was  connected  with  the  idea  of  a deeper  sense  of 
stewardship  in  the  use  of  possessions.  It  was  known  as 
the  American  Systematic  Beneficence  Society,  founded 
in  1857.  The  circular  announcing  its  formation  declared 

Tor  a fuller  account  of  the  present  significance  of  the  student 
movement,  see  the  1920  report  of  the  World’s  Student  Christian 
Federation,  which  can  be  secured  from  the  International  Com- 
mittee of  Young  Men’s  Christian  Associations,  347  Madison 
Avenue,  New  York. 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  277 


that  it  was  established  “by  clergy  and  laity  of  the  various 
evangelical  denominations”  and  that  its  object  was  “to 
promote  this  great  work  of  systematic  beneficence  ac- 
cording to  the  Christian  principle.”  The  statement 
added:  “We  hope  to  do  something  to  elevate  the  tone  of 
Christian  principle  and  action  throughout  the  whole  coun- 
try without  regard  to  geographical  or  ecclesiastical  dif- 
ferences.” The  president  of  the  organization  was  Mat- 
thew W.  Baldwin,  the  distinguished  layman  so  promi- 
nently known  in  connection  with  the  Baldwin  Locomotive 
Company.  Its  first  agent  was  Sheldon  Jackson,  later  to 
become  the  greatest  home  missionary  of  his  generation, 
who  was  commissioned  “to  present  the  cause  of  sys- 
tematic beneficence  by  addresses  and  public  assemblies, 
by  holding  conferences  with  pastors  of  churches  and 
friends  of  scriptural  liberality  and  by  other  proper  addi- 
tional methods  as  may  be  most  feasible.”8  In  England 
the  movement  seems  to  have  been  more  extensive  than 
in  this  country.  For  some  time  it  published  there  a 
quarterly  journal  called  The  Benefactor.  How  much 
was  hoped  for  from  the  movement  may  be  judged  from 
the  English  report  of  1864-1865  which  even  said:  “Nor 
are  we  to  limit  the  effect  of  this  movement  of  God  to  the 
pecuniary  results.  . . . Freedom  of  thought,  freedom  of 
worship,  freedom  of  organization,  and  freedom  of  con- 
tributions, will  yet  restore  the  long  lost  love  and  unity 
of  the  Redeemer’s  people.” 

Although  the  Systematic  Beneficence  Society  disap- 
peared, the  emphasis  on  the  stewardship  of  possessions 
has  been  revived  in  many  forms  and  has  deepened  the 
sense  of  Christian  fellowship  and  service.  The  Tenth 
Legion  in  the  Christian  Endeavor  Society  and  the 
stewardship  departments  in  various  churches  are  among 
its  many  expressions  today. 

‘See  R.  L.  Stewart,  “Sheldon  Jackson,”  New  York,  1909, 
Chapter  II.  For  the  movement  in  England  see  Henry  Lansdell, 
“The  Sacred  Tenth,”  Chapter  36,  London,  1906. 


278 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


The  Laymen’s  Evangelistic  Movement  was  less  a for- 
mal and  organized  interest  than  the  response  of  Christian 
leaders  in  various  churches  and  different  parts  of  the 
United  States  to  the  need  for  deeper  concern  for  the 
immediate  and  urgent  preaching  of  the  Gospel  in  ways 
less  formal  and  fixed  than  in  the  usual  methods  of  evan- 
gelism. Its  purpose  was  also  the  encouragement  of  all 
the  churches  in  the  utilization  of  such  evangelistic  powers 
as  they  possessed,  without  depending  too  much  upon  pro- 
fessional assistance.  The  value  of  this  impulse  was  very 
great  and  though  the  Movement  as  a formal  activity  is 
less  conspicuous  now  than  formerly,  its  results  abide. 

The  Laymen’s  Missionary  Movement,  dating  from 
1906,  was  in  reality  an  outgrowth  of  the  Student  Volun- 
teer Movement.  It  was  an  effort  to  capitalize  lay  effi- 
ciency in  the  promotion  of  missionary  enthusiasm  and 
activity.  Under  its  direction  several  series  of  notable 
conventions  were  held  in  the  chief  cities  of  the  nation, 
a large  amount  of  missionary  information  disseminated, 
and  new  enlistments  of  personnel  and  finances  secured 
for  missionary  boards.  These  conventions  had  the 
value  not  only  of  stimulating  interest  in  the  cause  of 
missions,  but  as  well  of  deepening  the  spiritual  life  of 
the  communities  in  which  they  were  held,  and  pro- 
moting the  spirit  of  unity  and  the  practice  of  united  en- 
deavor among  Christians  of  many  names. 

The  Men  and  Religion  Forward  Movement,  another 
expression  of  the  sense  of  responsibility  on  the  part  of 
the  laymen  in  the  churches,  took  form  about  1912,  and 
for  a time  was  prominent  in  the  thought  and  programs  of 
the  American  churches.  It  embraced  members  of  all 
the  denominations,  in  so  far  as  they  were  moved  to 
participate  in  so  promising  an  enterprise.  In  a very  true 
sense  it  laid  the  foundation  for  those  promotional  activ- 
ities which  have  taken  form  in  nearly  all  the  Christian 
bodies  in  the  way  of  new  and  urgent  efforts  to  enlist  the 
entire  Church,  laymen  and  ministers,  in  efficient  and  com- 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  279 


prehensive  plans  for  the  achievement  of  the  Christian 
objectives. 

During  recent  years  several  of  these  lay  activities 
have  been  in  some  measure  discontinued,  some  of  them 
in  deference  to  the  extended  program  of  the  Interchurch 
World  Movement.  But  in  one  form  or  another  they  are 
permanent  assets  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  both  as  efficient 
aids  in  its  ministry  of  good  in  the  world,  and  as  pro- 
moters of  the  spirit  of  cooperation  and  unity. 

An  influence  on  Christian  unity  that  deserves  more 
than  passing  attention  has  sprung  from  the  young  peo- 
ple’s movement,  particularly  as  it  has  found  expression 
in  the  Christian  Endeavor  Society.  Founded  in  1881 
in  Portland,  Maine,  by  Rev.  Francis  E.  Clark,  it  took 
root  so  rapidly  that  within  four  years  it  had  been  carried 
to  In<jia  by  a missionary  and  also  to  other  lands.  In 
1885  the  United  Society  (the  national  union  of  the  United 
States  and  Canada)  was  organized  and  within  a quarter 
of  a century  there  were  50,000  societies.  Local  and 
state  unions  were  also  developed,  bringing  together  the 
societies  in  various  churches.  National  conventions  have 
inspired  thousands  of  delegates  with  a vision  of  a com- 
mon task  and  with  enthusiasm  for  united  work.  The 
gathering  in  Boston  in  1895  was  attended  by  more  than 
50,000. 

The  movement  gathered  great  force  in  England  also, 
beginning  about  1888,  and  spread  to  practically  every 
land  where  Protestant  churches  were  at  work.  Its  con- 
stitution has  been  translated  into  about  a hundred 
tongues.  A World’s  Union  of  Christian  Endeavor  socie- 
ties was  organized  and  has  held  several  conventions.  At 
the  convention  in  Geneva,  Switzerland,  in  1906  a plat- 
form of  principles  was  adopted,  including  the  following, 
which  suggests  the  bearing  of  the  movement  on  Christian 
unity : 

“Christian  endeavor  stands  for  Loyalty  and  Fellow- 
ship. Its  loyalty  to  the  local  church  and  its  work  is  guar- 


28o 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


anteed  by  its  covenant  pledge,  which  embodies  its  motto, 
‘For  Christ  and  the  Church’;  its  fellowship  is  guaranteed 
by  its  insistence  only  on  fundamental  Christian  prin- 
ciples, which  has  enabled  it  already  to  find  a home  in 
every  Christian  land  and  denomination.” 

Many  other  impulses  to  good  works  and  the  enrich- 
ment of  the  spirit,  some  of  them  taking  form  in  less 
conspicuous  manner  but  with  most  valuable  results,  have 
had  a definite  effect  on  unity  through  increasing  mutual 
acquaintance  among  Christians  and  a realization  of  the 
value  of  joint  endeavors.  The  Brotherhood  Movement 
has  released  new  lay  effort  in  Christian  service.  The 
whole  field  of  women’s  work  in  the  Church  has  been  wid- 
ened during  the  past  few  years.  Prayer  leagues  have 
sprung  up,  less  by  formal  effort  than  by  common  impulse, 
uniting  Christians  everywhere  in  intercession  to  the  one 
Master  of  them  all.  The  fellowship  of  Christian  people 
as  expressed  in  hymns  and  other  utterances  of  Christian 
worship  has  brought  a deeper  consciousness  of  the  com- 
mon character  of  our  heritage.  Many  undenominational 
agencies  for  the  distribution  and  more  adequate  study  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  have  made  their  appearance.  All  of 
these  activities  are  greater  aids  than  is  often  realized  to 
the  sense  of  comradeship  which  all  Christian  people  en- 
joy with  those  who  have  obtained  like  precious  faith. 

VII.  Movements  for  Social  Reform 

In  the  vast  field  of  practical  effort  in  which  men  and 
women  of  Christian  spirit  and  vision  have  wrought  for 
the  overthrow  of  the  social  wrongs  that  have  distressed 
the  world  it  is  possible  here  to  give  only  a hint  of  the 
influence  that  has  been  brought  to  bear  on  Christian 
unity.  An  embodied  task,  challenging  men  of  kindred 
minds  to  a common  effort,  has  always  been  a potent  fac- 
tor in  minimizing  differences  on  lesser  points  and  creat- 
ing a consciousness  of  essential  oneness  in  the  things  that 
profoundly  matter. 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  281 


The  history  of  the  Church  in  connection  with  the  aboli- 
tion of  slavery  is  one  of  mingled  light  and  shadow.  Judge 
Birney  even  called  “the  American  churches  the  bulwarks 
of  American  slavery,”  and  it  is  undeniably  true  that  the 
churches  as  a whole  were  often  influenced  by  the  slave 
power.  Yet  it  was  mainly  Christian  sentiment  that  finally 
broke  up  slavery.  In  both  England  and  America  the 
earliest  bodies  in  modern  times  to  declare  against  it  were 
the  Quakers.  As  early  as  1671  George  Fox  had  de- 
nounced it  and  as  early  as  1696  the  Pennsylvania  Quakers 
advised  their  members  against  the  slave  trade.  In  1774 
all  persons  who  engaged  in  the  trade  and  in  1776  all  who 
refused  to  emancipate  their  slaves  were  excluded  from 
membership  among  the  Quakers.  In  other  churches  also 
there  soon  came  to  be  protests.  Wesley  and  Whitefield 
preached  against  the  slave  trade.  In  Rhode  Island  Dr. 
Hopkins,  a Congregational  minister,  was  so  vigorous  in 
his  opposition  that  he  had  a large  part  in  leading  to  its 
abolition  in  the  state  in  1784.  And  although  the  Quakers 
were  the  only  religious  body  to  exclude  slaveholders, 
others  took  strong  action.  In  1787  the  Presbyterian 
Synod  urged  the  people  “to  procure  eventually  the  final 
abolition  of  slavery  in  America.”  Other  bodies  also  later 
took  clear-cut  attitudes. 

More  important  than  such  official  utterances,  no  doubt, 
was  the  work  of  individual  Christians.  “Nearly  all,” 
says  Wilson,  the  historian  of  the  slave  power,  “who  en- 
gaged in  the  formation  of  antislavery  societies  were  mem- 
bers of  Christian  churches.”  William  Lloyd  Garrison 
and  Wendell  Phillips  were  profoundly  influenced  by 
Christianity.  Another  pioneer,  Elijah  P.  Lovejoy,  who 
was  killed  by  a mob  for  his  abolitionist  efforts,  was  a 
Presbyterian  minister.  Channing  and  Whittier  and  the 
Beechers  are  other  names  that  bear  witness  to  the  Chris- 
tian influence.10  The  Abolitionists  were,  of  course,  de- 

10See  the  “Encyclopedia  of  Social  Reform,”  New  York,  1910, 
under  “Slavery,”  “Abolition,”  “Christianity  and  Social  Reform.” 


28  2 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


nounced  from  hundreds  of  pulpits  and  finally  when  the 
irrepressible  conflict  came  the  churches  divided  over  the 
issue.  But  in  ths  North,  at  least,  it  is  clear  that  the  moral 
passion  called  out  by  the  antislavery  issue  bound  to- 
gether thousands  of  men  from  all  the  churches  in  a great 
common  endeavor. 

Of  a different  character  and  less  widely  known,  but 
significant  as  illustrative  both  of  the  possibilities  of  united 
service  and  of  its  bearing  on  the  movement  for  unity, 
was  the  movement  which  culminated  in  the  “United 
States  Christian  Commission,”  organized  to  care  for  the 
social  and  religious  needs  of  the  soldiers  during  the  Civil 
War.  Originating  at  a convention  of  the  Young  Men’s 
Christian  Association  in  1861,  a commission  of  twelve 
Christian  men  from  various  churches  was  organized  to 
represent  the  Association  and  the  Christian  public  in 
serving  as  a medium  of  communication  between  the  men 
in  the  army  and  their  homes.  Under  its  direction  Chris- 
tian literature  was  provided,  personal  religious  work  car- 
ried on,  and  other  measures  taken  for  alleviating  the  hor- 
rors of  war.  As  in  the  case  of  the  chaplains  in  the  re- 
cent World  War,  the  representatives  of  the  Christian 
Commission,  called  to  serve  men  of  all  shades  of  religious 
experience  and  belief,  came  into  a new  appreciation  of 
the  essential  oneness  of  their  Christian  faith. 

The  whole  history  of  the  modern  temperance  move- 
ment is  the  most  conspicuous  example  of  the  mutual 
influence  of  the  churches  and  social  reform  movements 
on  each  other.  The  way  has  been  long  and  difficult, 
marked  by  efforts  of  men  who  seemed  to  be  calling  to 
an  unresponsive  generation.  Up  through  the  stages  of 
the  Washingtonian  Movement,  the  Blue  Ribbon  Move- 
ment, the  work  of  such  individuals  as  Gough,  Murphy, 
and  Father  Mathew,  the  Woman’s  Christian  Temper- 
ance Union,  the  Prohibition  Party,  the  Anti-Saloon 
League,  and  a score  of  other  agencies,  the  movement 
has  gone  on  its  way  till  its  goal  is  in  sight.  Few  things 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  283 


more  astonishing  in  the  history  of  human  betterment 
are  to  be  recorded.  In  the  movement  the  churches  have 
directly  and  officially  had  a great  part  through  their 
temperance  boards  or  societies,  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  drawing  together  of  members  of  all  churches  who 
were  devoted  to  the  cause  has  contributed  to  the  devel- 
opment of  a consciousness  of  unity.  Some  of  the 
temperance  movements  have  been  outside  the  churches 
as  such,  but  it  is  confessed  on  every  hand  that  the  Church 
was  the  source  of  their  power.  The  W.  C.  T.  U.  and  the 
Anti-Saloon  League  have  always  had  an  avowedly  Chris- 
tian basis.  And  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  any  factor 
that  has  had  a greater  effect  in  cementing  the  interest 
of  Christians.  The  stupendous  and  cohesive  strength  of 
the  forces  of  evil,  against  which  these  organizations  have 
been  aligned,  has  made  more  vivid  the  necessity  of  united 
effort  and  has  afforded  a new  demonstration  of  the  power 
of  Christian  sentiment,  when  effectively  welded  and  de- 
liberately expressed  in  common  action. 

Many  other  movements  for  social  betterment,  such  as 
prison  reform,  the  movement  for  social  purity,  the  social 
settlement  enterprise,  and  organized  charities,  are  the  re- 
sult, directly  or  indirectly,  of  Christian  teaching  and 
largely  supported  by  members  of  the  Church.  And  in 
all  such  cases  there  is  a reflex  influence  on  the  Church. 
Thus  drawn  together  in  joint  endeavors  regardless  of 
denominational  lines,  the  unity  of  those  who  are  touched 
by  the  Spirit  of  the  one  Lord  becomes  increasingly  rec- 
ognized as  a present  reality. 

When  one  passes  in  review  the  host  of  agencies  that 
may  be  characterized  as  undenominational — movements 
that  have  sought  to  secure  united  action  on  the  part  of 
Christian  men  and  women  through  ignoring  the  differ- 
ences at  issue  among  the  denominations — he  is  pro- 
foundly impressed  by  the  strong  influences  that  have  been 
set  in  motion  in  the  direction  of  unity.  The  Evangelical 


284 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Alliance,  the  Young  Men’s  and  the  Young  Women’s 
Christian  Associations,  the  Laymen’s  Missionary  Move- 
ment, the  Men  and  Religion  Forward  Movement — to 
mention  only  a few  of  the  outstanding  enterprises — 
have  broken  down  provincial  points  of  view,  eliminated 
prejudices  and  misunderstandings,  developed  a spirit  of 
fellowship  in  which  Christians  of  various  names  knew 
themselves  to  be  really  one.  This  far-reaching,  even 
though  indirect,  influence  on  the  denominations  has  been 
a powerful  factor  in  making  possible  the  growing  official 
cooperation  among  the  denominations  themselves. 


CHAPTER  IX 


INTERDENOMINATIONAL  MOVEMENTS  IN 
THE  UNITED  STATES 

The  preceding  chapter  has  considered  significant  at- 
tempts that  have  been  made  to  bring  church  members 
together  through  ignoring  denominational  lines.  The  co- 
operation thus  secured  has  been  that  of  individuals  as 
Christians  rather  than  of  churches  as  churches.  During 
the  same  period,  however,  other  movements  have  been  go- 
ing on  which  aimed  at  a closer  official  relationship  be- 
tween the  denominations  themselves,  and  are,  therefore, 
to  be  regarded  as  interdenominational  in  the  strict  sense 
rather  than  undenominational.  They  have  been  referred 
to  briefly  in  Chapter  VII,  but  some  of  them  were  so 
important  as  to  deserve  more  detailed  treatment  here. 

I.  The  Cooperative  Movement  in  the  Early  Part 
of  the  Nineteenth  Century 

i.  Cooperation  between  Congregationalists  and  Presby- 
terians in  the  “Plan  of  Union” 

American  Presbyterianism  had  two  main  sources,  Eng- 
lish Puritanism  and  Scottish-Irish  immigration.  Between 
the  Puritanism  that  settled  New  England  and  became 
Congregational  and  the  Puritanism  represented  in  the 
Middle  Colonies  there  was  always  doctrinal  sympathy. 
The  Congregational  Churches  of  New  England,  repre- 
sented in  the  Cambridge  Synod  of  1648,  approved  the 
Westminster  Confession  as  “very  holy,  orthodox,  and 
judicious  in  all  matters  of  faith.”  Ministers  from  New 
England  supported  the  preaching  of  the  Scottish-Irish 
founder,  Francis  Makemie,  and  joined  with  him  in  or- 

285 


286 


CHRISTiAN  UNITY 


ganizing  the  first  American  presbytery,  that  of  Philadel- 
phia, in  1706.  This  association  in  sympathy  was  in- 
creased by  the  discussions  consequent  upon  the  “Great 
Awakening.”  Those  in  New  England  and  the  Middle 
Colonies  who  favored  the  revival,  of  whom  Jonathan 
Edwards  was  a leader,  known  as  “New  Lights”  and  “New 
Sides,”  felt  that  their  cause  was  essentially  one.  They 
founded  what  is  now  Princeton  University  in  1746,  and 
ultimately  called  Jonathan  Edwards  to  its  presidency. 
In  New  England  they  were  opposed  by  the  “Old  Lights,” 
from  whose  radical  minority  the  “liberal”  element  which 
became  Unitarian  in  the  early  nineteenth  century  devel- 
oped. In  the  Middle  Colonies  the  opposition  was  known 
as  the  “Old  Sides,”  who  then  represented  an  opposite 
tendency,  insisting  on  rigid  confessional  uniformity, 
strongly  suspicious  of  all  that  was  English  in  its  origin, 
or  even  derivatively  English  by  way  of  New  England, 
largely  Scottish-Irish  in  spiritual  ancestry,  and  at  first 
having  their  center  about  Philadelphia,  but  soon  strongly 
represented  also  in  western  Pennsylvania. 

Under  these  circumstances,  “New  Lights”  and  “New 
Sides,”  feeling  themselves  essentially  one,  regarded  dif- 
ferences in  polity  as  little  more  than  local  peculiarities. 
Closer  ties  were  soon  woven  between  them.  Fear  of  the 
possible  establishment  of  episcopacy  by  Parliament  led 
to  a joint  convention  of  representatives  of  the  Synod  of 
New  York  and  Philadelphia  and  of  the  Associations  of 
Connecticut,  which  met  annually,  from  1766  to  1775,  to 
devise  measures  of  protection.  Even  before  the  Revo- 
lution settlers  from  New  England  and  the  Middle  Col- 
onies were  pouring  westward,  and  with  the  cessation  of 
that  struggle  were  rapidly  making  new  homes  in  New 
York,  western  Pennsylvania,  and  Ohio.  Congregational- 
ists  and  Presbyterians  were  awake  to  the  spiritual  needs 
of  these  nascent  communities  and  were  soon  sending 
missionaries  and  founding  churches  among  them,  and 
none  were  more  forward  in  this  work  than  those  of  “New 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  287 


Light”  and  “New  Side”  lineage.  By  1774  the  Connecti- 
cut General  Association  was  committed  by  vote  to  this 
evangelism,  and  in  1798  formally  organized  itself  as  a 
missionary  society ; nor  was  Presbyterianism  behind. 
Similar  associations  for  what  would  now  be  called  home 
missions  were  springing  rapidly  into  being  throughout 
older  Congregational  and  Presbyterian  territories  at  the 
dawn  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

Being  thus  at  one  in  aim  and  in  doctrinal  outlook,  and 
laboring  in  communities  whose  settlers  were  drawn 
equally  from  Congregational  and  Presbyterian  sources, 
it  was  natural  that  the  thought  of  yet  closer  association 
in  a common  work  should  arise.  Led,  it  would  appear, 
by  Jonathan  Edwards,  son  of  the  famous  divine  whose 
name  he  bore,  the  Connecticut  General  Association  raised 
the  question  of  definite  cooperation  with  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  with  the  result  that 
the  latter  body  in  1801  formulated  the  famous  “Plan  of 
Union,”  which  the  Connecticut  body  promptly  ratified. 
By  the  provisions  of  this  agreement,  which  applied  to 
home  missionary  soil,  each  member  in  a mixed  church 
should  have  the  privileges  of  the  polity  of  his  choice. 
Each  church  should  choose  a “standing  committee”  which 
should  exercise  the  ordinary  rights  of  a session,  and  the 
delegate  of  such  a standing  committee  should  have  full 
recognition  as  a ruling  elder  if  sent  to  a presbytery.  Pres- 
byterian and  Congregational  ministers  could  be  indiffer- 
ently pastors  of  Presbyterian,  Congregational,  or  mixed 
churches,  but  should  be  answerable  for  discipline  accord- 
ing to  the  polity  they  represented.  The  whole  plan  was 
drawn  in  the  utmost  spirit  of  good  will  and  was  as  equi- 
table an  arrangement  as  the  wisdom  of  the  time  could 
devise.  American  Christianity  has  no  more  sincere  effort 
for  cooperation  to  show.  For  more  than  a generation  it 
was  faithfully  employed.  It  was  cordially  supported  by 
the  more  local  missionary  societies  of  the  older  states,  and 
determined  the  action  of  the  “American  Home  Mission- 


288 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


ary  Society,”  when  that  was  organized  on  a national  scale 
in  1826.  Under  it  a large  portion  of  what  are  now  strong 
churches  of  western  New  York,  Ohio,  Michigan,  and  Illi- 
nois were  founded. 

Time,  however,  made  evident  certain  factors  which 
were  not  in  the  view  of  those  who  formulated  the  “Plan 
of  Union.”  They  had  in  mind  frontier  conditions,  but 
the  regions  where  these  churches  were  planted  soon  grew 
strong  in  population,  influence,  and  local  consciousness. 
What  was  adapted  to  nascent  communities  proved  less 
suitable  for  established  and  self-sufficient  common- 
wealths. Yet  what  they  could  least  have  anticipated  was 
a growth  of  denominational  consciousness,  that  rendered 
the  situation  by  1835  very  different  from  what  it  was  in 
1801.  This  consciousness  had  many  roots.  It  has  been 
pointed  out  that  all  along  there  was  a Scottish-Irish  ele- 
ment in  the  Presbyterian  Church  which  looked  askance 
at  all  that  was  English,  whether  so  by  origin  or  deriva- 
tion. This  element  was  tenaciously  conservative  in  doc- 
trine and  polity.  It  had  been  strongly  reenforced  by  the 
growth  of  Presbyterianism  in  the  South,  where  no  plan 
of  union  was  in  force.  Moreover,  western  Pennsylvania 
and  the  adjacent  regions  were  developing  a marked  mis- 
sionary and  educational  quickening.  There  was  not  a 
little  in  the  theological  discussions  of  New  England,  even 
in  the  line  of  strictest  Edwardean  descent  from  Bellamy 
to  Taylor,  with  their  various  “improvements”  on  tradi- 
tional Calvinism,  to  arouse  the  distrust  of  extreme  Pres- 
byterian conservatives.  These  “improvements”  had  their 
champions  among  Presbyterians  who  traced  their  spirit- 
ual, and  often  their  physical,  ancestry  to  New  England. 
Now  forgotten  controversies  regarding  the  extent  of  the 
atonement,  the  nature  of  imputation,  and  the  divine  pur- 
pose in  the  permission  of  sin,  led  to  trials  for  heresy 
which  increased  the  tension.  And  the  Congregationalists 
were  not  without  their  criticisms  of  the  results  of  the 
“Plan  of  Union.”  A growing  denominational  conscious- 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  289 


ness  claimed,  probably  justly,  that  a majority  of  the 
churches  formed  under  it  ultimately  preferred  Presby- 
terian to  Congregational  affiliations. 

The  breach  came  in  1837.  The  control  of  the  Presby- 
terian General  Assembly  had  been  for  some  time  in  dis- 
pute, but  that  year  the  conservatives  had  a majority. 
They  used  their  power.  The  “Plan  of  Union”  was  repu- 
diated by  a narrow  vote  of  129  to  123;  several  synods 
composed  largely  of  churches  formed  under  it  were  ex- 
cluded from  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  the  American 
Home  Missionary  Society  was  condemned.  Such  a 
wholesale  overturn,  by  so  close  a vote,  could  result  only 
in  division.  The  Presbyterian  Church  was  rent  into  “Old 
School”  and  “New  School”  denominations.  The  “New 
School”  still  adhered  to  the  “Plan  of  Union”  and  coop- 
erated in  missionary  labors  at  home  and  abroad  with  the 
Congregationalists.  Yet  the  growing  denominational  con- 
sciousness of  the  Congregationalists  was  rendering  even 
this  cooperation  difficult,  and  at  the  Albany  Convention 
in  1852  they,  too,  withdrew.  The  “Plan  of  Union”  was 
now  at  an  end,  for  not  even  the  happy  reunion  of  the 
sundered  “Old  School”  and  “New  School”  divisions  of 
Presbyterianism,  in  1870,  awoke  any  desire  to  renew  it. 

With  the  failure  of  the  plan  terminated  one  of  the  most 
promising  efforts  ever  made  in  the  United  States  to 
associate  two  great  religious  denominations  in  a common 
enterprise  of  evangelization.  Estimates  of  its  worth  will 
vary  with  denominational  prepossessions.  It  is  evident, 
however,  that  it  was  not  so  wrought  out  as  to  adapt  it 
to  permanent  conditions,  however  fitted  to  the  temporary 
exigencies  of  frontier  life.  It  is  also  clear  that  denomi- 
national assertiveness,  though  absent  from  the  minds  of 
those  who  formulated  the  plan,  had  not  so  permanently 
diminished  in  the  participating  bodies  as  a whole  as  to 
make  its  permanent  success  possible.  Yet  that  it  did 
much  for  the  development  of  the  Protestantism  of  the 
older  Middle  West  there  can  be  no  question. 


290 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


2.  The  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign 
Missions  as  a Cooperative  Enterprise 

The  “Plan  of  Union’’  of  1801,  in  accordance  with 
which  the  Congregationalists  and  the  Presbyterians  un- 
dertook to  cooperate  in  carrying  the  Gospel  to  the  settlers 
of  the  then  new  West,  was  a conspicuous  illustration  of 
missionary  interest  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  century. 
So  also  were  the  even  earlier  efforts  that  were  made  at 
Christianizing  the  American  Indians,  carried  on  by  John 
Eliot  and  the  Mayhews  as  early  as  1646,  and  subsequently 
by  David  Brainerd,  David  Seisberger,  and  many  others, 
culminating  at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  in  such 
organizations  for  this  purpose  as  the  New  York  Society, 
organized  in  1796  by  members  of  the  Presbyterian,  Bap- 
tist, and  Reformed  Dutch  Churches. 

So  although  missionary  work  across  the  seas  had 
hardly  been  more  than  thought  of  in  1800,  it  needed  but 
information  and  example  to  turn  a portion  of  the  exist- 
ing missionary  impulse  toward  the  heathenism  abroad. 
That  fresh  impulse  was  furnished  to  the  United  States 
by  the  contagious  example  of  Great  Britain,  where  the 
zeal  of  William  Carey  had  resulted  in  1792  in  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Baptist  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel 
among  the  Heathen.  That  had  been  followed  in  1795  by 
the  creation  of  the  London  Missionary  Society,  through 
the  united  efforts  of  Congregationalists,  Episcopalians, 
Methodists,  and  Presbyterians.  Four  years  later  the 
Church  Missionary  Society  came  into  being.  News  of 
these  significant  efforts  and  accounts  of  their  early  labors 
crossed  the  Atlantic,  and  found  eager  readers  in  the 
United  States.  It  was  inevitable  that  zeal  for  foreign 
missions  should  before  long  be  awakened  in  America. 

Yet  at  first  foreign  missions  was  a cause  that  did  not 
appeal  to  the  majority  of  the  Christian  denominations  as 
a whole.  The  small  Moravian  body  had  been  dedicated 
to  missions  since  the  time  of  Zinzendorf,  but  it  was  an 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  291 


exception.  The  missionary  obligation  as  incumbent  on 
the  whole  Church,  or  whole  denominational  sections  of 
the  Church,  was  not  yet  felt.  The  appeal  of  missions  was 
at  first  to  those  interested.  The  cause  seemed  to  demand 
unusual  faith,  as  well  as  more  than  customary  sacrifice. 
Missions  were  too  remote,  the  people  to  whom  they  min- 
istered too  strange  and  too  unknown,  to  force  the  sense 
of  duty  upon  the  Church  as  a whole.  A process  of  edu- 
cation before  these  results  could  be  achieved  was  almost 
everywhere  needed. 

So  it  came  about  that  when  the  Massachusetts  General 
Association  of  Congregational  ministers,  meeting  in 
Bradford  in  1810,  gave  favorable  hearing  to  the  appeal 
of  Judson,  Nott,  Mills,  and  Newell,  then  students  in  the 
recently  formed  Andover  Theological  Seminary,  to  be 
sent  as  missionaries,  it  authorized  not  an  appeal  to  the 
churches  grouped  in  denominational  lines  but  the  organ- 
ization of  an  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for 
Foreign  Missions,  naming  in  the  first  instance  five  from 
Massachusetts  and  four  from  Connecticut,  who  should 
enlist  those  interested,  find  ways  and  means  for  the  work, 
and  superintend  it.  Yet  it  was  thought  at  first  that  the 
cause  could  be  best  furthered  by  a similar  organization 
among  Presbyterians.  With  this  object  in  view  the 
Commissioners,  at  their  meeting  in  1811,  suggested  to 
the  Presbyterian  General  Assembly  parallel  action.  It 
was  at  the  time  of  close  cooperation  between  Congrega- 
tionalists  and  Presbyterians  in  home  missionary  endeavor. 
The  “Plan  of  Union,”  already  described,  had  been  in 
apparently  successful  operation  for  a decade.  Under 
such  circumstances  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  Presby- 
terian General  Assembly  answered  the  overture  in  1812 
by  cordially  offering  cooperation,  as  opportunity  offered, 
in  the  work  of  the  Board  just  established: 

“As  the  churches  under  the  care  of  the  Assembly  re- 
joice in  the  foreign  missions  organized,  or  about  to  be 
organized,  by  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners,  so, 


292 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


as  opportunity  favors,  they  ought  to  aid  them,  as  they 
have  in  a measure  already  aided  them.  . . . That,  as  the 
business  of  foreign  missions  may  properly  be  best  man- 
aged under  the  direction  of  a single  Board,  so  the  numer- 
ous and  extensive  engagements  of  the  Assembly,  in  regard 
to  domestic  missions,  render  it  extremely  inconvenient, 
at  this  time,  to  take  part  in  the  business  of  foreign 
missions.” 

The  Board  promptly  met  this  offer  of  cooperation  by 
choosing,  in  1812,  eight  additional  commissioners,  rep- 
resentative of  the  Presbyterian  sympathizers  of  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania.  Less  definite  invi- 
tation, but  a knowledge  that  such  action  would  be  gen- 
erally acceptable,  led  to  the  choice  by  the  Board  of  a 
commissioner  from  the  Associate  Reformed  (now  United 
Presbyterian)  Church  in  1813  and  in  1815  of  one  from 
what  was  then  known  as  the  Reformed  Protestant  Dutch 
Church  in  North  America.  By  the  year  last  named  the 
American  Board  was  clearly  a widely  recognized  inter- 
denominational missionary  agency.  Even  then  its  con- 
stituency was  far  from  inclusive,  for  the  wholly  inde- 
pendent American  Baptist  Missionary  Union  was  founded 
in  1814,  and  the  Missionary  Society  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  in  1819.  The  rela- 
tions of  the  Board  with  Presbyterians  were  peculiarly 
intimate.  In  1826  the  General  Assembly,  by  formal  vote, 
again  recommended  the  Board  “to  the  favorable  notice 
and  Christian  support  of  the  church  and  people  under 
our  care.”  Even  as  late  as  1862,  the  Secretary  of  the 
Board,  Rufus  Anderson,  could  say  that  it  was  designed 
“for  all  who  should  choose  to  employ  it;  for  individual 
Christians,  churches,  denominations,  whoever  saw  fit 
to  act  through  the  agency  it  had  to  offer.”  That,  in  prin- 
ciple at  least,  was  an  instance  of  extreme  interdenomina- 
tionalism. 

Long  before  the  declaration  just  quoted  was  penned, 
however,  the  separations  had  begun  which  were  to  confine 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND 


293 


the  American  Board  practically  to  the  patronage  of  mem- 
bers of  a single  communion.  One  evidence  of  the  re- 
markable spiritual  awakening  which  was  in  progress 
among  the  conservative  Presbyterian  forces  in  western 
Pennsylvania  was  the  formation  by  the  Synod  of  Pitts- 
burgh, in  1831,  of  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  So- 
ciety. The  region  in  which  this  new  missionary  body 
came  into  existence  was  the  focus  of  that  opposition  to 
all  New  England  modifications  of  traditional  Presbyterian 
doctrine  and  polity,  the  center  of  what  may  be  called  the 
Scottish-Irish  tradition,  out  of  which  the  “Old  School” 
party  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  was  to  come.  That  ele- 
ment triumphed,  as  has  already  been  noted,  in  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  1837,  with  the  result  that  the  Presby- 
terian Church  was  rent  in  twain.  The  victorious  “Old 
School”  party,  opposed  to  all  association  with  New  Eng- 
land and  its  alleged  doctrinal  laxity,  declared  against  the 
American  Home  Missionary  Society  as  “exceedingly  in- 
jurious to  the  peace  and  purity  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,”  and  withdrew,  as  far  as  it  could,  the  support 
of  the  Christians  under  its  charge  from  the  American 
Board. 

Yet  a far  nobler  motive  played  a large  part  in  the 
transaction.  The  sense  of  missionary  obligation  had 
markedly  increased  in  a generation.  One  of  the  con- 
tentions of  the  new  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society 
had  been  that  missionary  effort  is  the  duty  not  of  inter- 
ested individuals  and  congregations  alone,  but  of  the 
whole  Church  as  such;  and,  being  so,  should  have  direct 
and  responsible  denominational  supervision  and  support. 
It  was  undoubtedly  a step  in  the  progress  of  the  sense  of 
missionary  obligation.  The  “Old  School”  Assembly, 
therefore,  promptly  adopted  the  Western  Foreign  Mis- 
sionary Society  as  its  denominational  agency,  putting  it 
under  the  charge  of  the  Assembly  and  renaming  it  the 
Board  of  Foreign  Missions  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
On  the  other  hand  the  “New  School”  wing  of  divided 


294 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Presbyterianism  continued  its  previous  cooperative  rela- 
tions with  the  American  Board. 

To  a similar  growth  of  the  inclusive  sense  of  mission- 
ary obligation  was  due  the  separation  of  the  Reformed 
Protestant  Dutch  Church  from  the  American  Board.  Its 
relations  had  never  been  quite  as  intimate  as  those  of  the 
Presbyterians,  though  it  contributed  the  president  of  the 
Board  from  1841  to  1857  in  the  person  of  the  honored 
Theodore  Frelinghuysen.  The  efforts  of  the  Dutch 
Church,  though  superintended  by  the  American  Board, 
had  been  concentrated  on  a small  group  of  missions 
largely  manned  by  its  own  sons.  By  1857  the  feeling 
had  grown,  as  expressed  by  the  General  Synod  of  that 
Church,  that  it  is  “the  duty  of  the  Church,  in  her  dis- 
tinctive capacity  as  such,  to  take  charge  of  these  mis- 
sions.” The  result  was  an  amicable  withdrawal  from 
cooperation  with  the  American  Board,  and  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  of  the  Reformed 
(Dutch)  Church. 

Thus  gradually  deprived  of  important  sections  of  its 
constituency,  the  American  Board  continued  the  joint 
missionary  agency  of  the  Congregational  and  “New 
School”  Presbyterian  Churches.  The  reunion  in  1870 
of  the  two  wings  of  divided  Presbyterianism  led  to  the 
friendly  withdrawal  of  the  latter.  The  “New  School,” 
as  one  of  the  conditions  of  reunion,  gave  its  allegiance 
to  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  Yet  individual  Presbyterians  continue  their 
support  of  the  American  Board  to  the  present,  and  they 
furnished  a vice-president  to  the  Board  as  recently  as 
1897-1900.  Thus  reduced  practically  to  a Congregational 
constituency,  the  growth  of  the  sense  of  universal  mis- 
sionary obligation  in  the  Congregational  Churches  as 
elsewhere  has  led  the  Board,  without  altering  its  legal 
form,  to  attempt  closer  relationship  to  the  churches  as 
such,  by  allowing  their  representative  bodies  an  ever 
increasing  share  in  the  nomination  of  commissioners  or, 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  295 


as  they  are  usually  termed,  “corporate  members.”  The 
process  was  completed  by  the  acceptance  by  the  Board  of 
the  new  constitution  approved  by  the  National  Council 
of  the  Congregational  Churches  in  1913,  by  which  the 
vast  majority  of  the  voting  membership  in  the  American 
Board  are  now  the  representatives  chosen  by  the  churches 
as  their  delegates  to  the  National  Council  itself.  The 
ancient  independent  society  has  thus  become  fully  the 
agent  of  and  responsible  to  the  Congregational  Churches. 

The  story  of  this  failure  of  a cooperative  interdenom- 
inational agency  to  maintain  its  original  status  is  not  at 
all  discreditable,  for,  as  has  been  seen,  the  reasons  for 
most  of  the  successive  withdrawals  which  have  marked 
its  history  have  been  a growing  conviction  of  the  uni- 
versality of  the  missionary  obligation  as  a duty  of  all 
the  churches.  Present  attempts  at  cooperation  must  fully 
recognize  this  change.  They  cannot  be  associations  sim- 
ply of  those,  many  or  few,  who  are  interested  in  the 
cause,  for  the  cause  has  become  that  of  the  churches  as 
a whole.  The  question  now  is  whether  the  time  has  not 
come  for  a united  effort,  based  not  on  the  voluntary  ef- 
forts of  individuals  of  various  churches  but  on  the  official 
action  of  the  denominations  themselves.1 

3.  Cooperation  in  the  American  Bible  Society 

While  the  story  of  the  American  Board  of  Commis- 
sioners for  Foreign  Missions  is  that  of  a cooperating 
agency  of  several  Christian  bodies  becoming,  by  succes- 
sive withdrawals,  the  missionary  instrumentality  of  a 
single  denomination,  the  history  of  the  American  Bible 
Society  exhibits  association  in  Christian  effort  continuing 
to  the  present.  As  in  the  development  of  organized  mis- 
sionary activity,  so  in  the  formation  of  Bible  societies, 
English  example  was  powerfully  influential.  Not  a little 

'The  influence  of  the  work  on  the  foreign  field  itself  upon  the 
movement  toward  union  will  be  considered  in  a subsequent  part 
of  this  chapter. 


296 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


was  achieved  in  the  eighteenth  century  in  furthering  the 
circulation  of  the  Bible  by  the  Society  for  Promoting 
Christian  Knowledge,  founded  in  1698,  and  the  Naval 
and  Military  Bible  Society,  organized  in  1780.  Of  far 
greater  importance  was  the  establishment  in  London  in 
1804  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  an  inter- 
denominational body  whose  work  has  gone  forth  in  ever 
increasing  measure  to  the  present. 

The  fame  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society 
soon  led  to  similar  efforts  in  the  United  States,  though 
these  were  at  first  local  in  their  fields.  The  earliest  to 
come  into  being  was  the  Philadelphia  Bible  Society, 
formed  in  1808.  In  May,  1809,  Connecticut  caught  the 
contagion;  in  July  of  the  same  year  Massachusetts  fol- 
lowed; New  York  in  November,  and  New  Jersey  in  De- 
cember. The  roll  of  similar  organizations  had  passed 
one  hundred  by  1815.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  much 
as  these  local  organizations  could  do  to  promote  the  cir- 
culation of  the  Scriptures,  the  publication  of  the  Bible 
in  the  quantities  demanded  by  such  a circulation  was 
beyond  the  means  of  any  but  the  most  fortunate.  Their 
local  scope  made  no  adequate  provision  for  the  needs  of 
the  newly  settled  portions  of  the  country.  It  is  clear, 
also,  that  the  publication  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  lan- 
guages of  the  mission  fields  would  have  been  beyond  the 
powers  of  local  societies.  Nothing  smaller  than  a gen- 
eral Bible  society  could  accomplish  these  results.  So  it 
came  about  that,  chiefly  through  the  zeal  of  Elias  Boudi- 
not,  President  of  the  New  Jersey  Bible  Society,  and  in 
the  face  of  some  opposition  from  the  stronger  local  soci- 
eties, the  American  Bible  Society  came  into  being  in  New 
York  in  May,  1816.  Delegates  from  thirty-one  local  so- 
cieties participated  in  its  foundation,  among  them  adher- 
ents of  the  Baptist,  Congregationalist,  Episcopalian, 
Friends,  Reformed,  and  Presbyterian  Churches.  It  was 
speedily  widely  recognized  as  an  undenominational 
agency  to  which  the  various  local  societies  became  auxil- 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  297 


iary,  though  some  were  slow  in  so  doing,  the  latest  con- 
spicuous local  body  to  become  thus  affiliated  being  the 
Philadelphia  Society,  which  maintained  its  independence 
till  1839.  Some  criticism  of  an  undenominational  enter- 
prise was  heard,  but  the  American  Bible  Society  soon 
won  well-nigh  universal  Protestant  approval. 

At  first  the  Society  issued  Bibles  in  English,  French, 
German,  and  Spanish,  feeling  that  its  prime  obligations 
were  to  residents  of  North  and  South  America,  but  its 
constitution  pledged  assistance  to  heathen  lands,  and  the 
Society  was  not  ten  years  old  before,  like  its  British  pro- 
totype, it  was  assisting  in  the  publication  of  missionary 
translations.  Out  of  this  extension  of  its  work  its  only 
considerable  schism  grew.  Baptists  had  been  from  the 
first  cordial  supporters  of  the  Bible  Society.  The  aid  of 
the  Society  was  sought,  in  1835,  in  printing  a translation 
of  the  Bible  made  by  Baptist  missionaries  into  Bengali, 
in  which  the  word  “baptize”  had  been  rendered  by  the 
equivalent  of  “immerse.”  The  Society  refused  to  sanc- 
tion the  grant  as  divisive.  The  result  was  the  withdrawal 
of  many  Baptists  from  the  American  Bible  Society  and 
the  organization  by  them,  in  1837,  of  the  American  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society.  The  seceding  organization  was 
in  turn  rent,  in  1850,  over  the  question  whether  revision 
should  extend  to  English  versions.  Those  favoring  the 
latter  course  organized  the  American  Bible  Union.  These 
Baptist  societies  had  a checkered  career,  and,  in  1883, 
their  work  was  absorbed  by  the  American  Baptist  Mis- 
sionary Union  and  the  American  Baptist  Publication  So- 
ciety. Yet  not  all  Baptists  deserted  the  American  Bible 
Society,  and  that  body  has  always  been  ready  to  aid 
Baptists  in  work  at  home  and  abroad.2  In  practically  all 
of  the  other  denominations  no  effort  has  been  made  to 
establish  agencies  for  the  circulation  of  the  Scriptures. 


Tt  may  be  noted  that  the  present  president  of  the  American 
Bible  Society  is  a Baptist. 


298 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


The  American  Bible  Society  has  been  included  in  the 
official  benevolences  of  the  Presbyterian  and  the  Meth- 
odist Churches,  both  Northern  and  Southern,  for  many 
decades  and  has  become  their  official  or  semi-official  or- 
gan in  this  field.  More  recently  it  has  also  become  an  ac- 
cepted benevolence  of  other  denominations,  including  the 
Reformed  Church  in  America,  the  Reformed  Church  in 
the  United  States,  the  Congregational  Churches,  the 
Church  of  the  Brethren,  and  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church. 

Although  the  American  Bible  Society  thus  stands  as  a 
great  interdenominational  agency,  holding  the  adherence 
of  the  greater  part  of  Protestant  American  Christianity, 
its  fate  might  easily  have  been  like  that  of  the  American 
Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions.  A 
doctrinal  test  led  to  a serious  schism.  That  it  main- 
tains an  interdenominational  character  would  seem  to 
be  due  to  the  facts  that  its  circulation  of  the  Scriptures 
without  note  or  comment  has  aroused  no  question  of  doc- 
trinal bias  in  any  great  American  Protestant  communion 
save  one ; that  its  labors  have  been  of  equal  usefulness  to 
nearly  all  churches ; and  that  by  its  resources  it  has  devel- 
oped an  economy  in  the  costs  of  its  work  that  no  denom- 
inational agency  could  surpass. 

4.  The  Rise  of  the  Christian  Denomination  ( Disciples ) 
as  an  Effort  to  Secure  Organic  Union 

Thomas  Campbell,  the  founder  of  the  Disciples,  was  a 
minister  of  the  Secession  Presbyterian  Church  of  the 
north  of  Ireland,  who  emigrated  to  western  Pennsyl- 
vania in  1807  and  connected  himself  with  the  Secession 
Presbytery  of  Chartiers.  In  this  region  of  intense  sec- 
tarian rivalries  Campbell,  whose  attitude  was  broadly 
sympathetic,  soon  ran  counter  to  the  general  feeling  by 
inviting  Christians  somewhat  widely  to  the  Lord’s  Sup- 
per. His  action  was  given  censure  by  the  Presbytery  of 
Chartiers,  which  an  appeal  to  the  Associate  Synod  did 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  299 


not  remove.  Campbell  therefore  withdrew  and  was  soon 
laboring  independently  in  western  Pennsylvania,  pro- 
claiming as  his  principle,  “Where  the  Scriptures  speak, 
we  speak ; and  where  the  Scriptures  are  silent,  we  are 
silent.”  It  was  not  a new  denomination  that  he  had  in 
mind,  but  a union  of  all  willing  Christians  by  a return  to 
the  principles  and  practices  of  the  apostolic  Church.  On 
August  1 7,  1809,  Thomas  Campbell  and  his  sympathizers 
founded  “The  Christian  Association  of  Washington,”  so 
named  from  the  county  of  their  principal  residence  in 
Pennsylvania.  For  this  Association  Thomas  Campbell 
wrote  the  “Declaration  and  Address,”  which  has  ever 
since  been  regarded  as  the  fundamental  document  of  the 
Disciples’  movement.  It  affirmed  that  “nothing  ought  to 
be  inculcated  upon  Christians  as  articles  of  faith,  nor 
required  of  them  as  terms  of  communion,  but  what  is 
expressly  taught  and  enjoined  upon  them  in  the  Word 
of  God.” 

While  Thomas  Campbell  was  printing  this  document, 
his  son,  Alexander,  was  on  the  ocean.  On  his  arrival  in 
October,  1809,  he  threw  himself  into  hearty  support  of 
his  father’s  movement,  and  with  such  ability  that  until 
his  death  in  1866  he  was  its  most  conspicuous  leader. 
The  elder  Campbell  now  applied  to  the  Presbyterian 
Synod  of  Pittsburgh  for  recognition  of  the  principles 
enunciated  in  the  “Declaration  and  Address.”  This  was 
refused  and,  therefore,  in  spite  of  their  undenominational 
intentions,  he  and  his  associates  formed  a church  in  Bush 
Run,  Pennsylvania,  in  May,  1811.  It  began  at  once  the 
observance  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  every  Sunday.  In  the 
minds  of  some  of  the  members  doubts  as  to  the  validity 
of  infant  baptism  and  sprinkling  speedily  arose,  and  by 
July  of  the  same  year  Thomas  Campbell  was  practicing 
immersion.  In  June,  1812,  he  and  his  son  and  their  fam- 
ilies were  immersed.  The  original  “Christian  Association 
of  Washington”  was  divided  on  the  issue.  Under  these 
circumstances,  it  is  not  surprising  that  in  1813  the  Bush 


300 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Run  church  became  a member  of  the  Redstone  Associa- 
tion of  Baptist  Churches. 

The  Campbells  and  their  friends,  however,  found 
themselves  speedily  in  disagreement  with  the  majority 
of  the  Baptists.  While  refusing  to  be  classed  as  Cal- 
vinists or  Arminians,  they  found  Calvinism  characteris- 
tic of  the  Baptist  Churches.  They  were  disposed  to  give 
less  weight  to  the  Old  Testament  as  a guide  for  Chris- 
tian conduct  than  were  their  Baptist  neighbors.  Though 
essentially  Trinitarian,  the  Campbells’  refusal  to  employ 
any  but  Scriptural  expressions  regarding  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  led  to  criticism.  Their  sharpest 
dispute  with  the  Baptists  was  in  regard  to  the  significance 
of  baptism  itself  and  its  place  in  the  divine  plan  of  re- 
demption. To  the  Baptists  it  was  a pledge  of  loyalty  and 
a privilege  of  the  already  regenerated  and  pardoned  sin- 
ner. To  the  Campbells  it  was  part  of  the  divinely  ap- 
pointed condition  of  forgiveness  and,  with  the  antecedent 
confession  of  faith  in  Christ,  constituted  an  essential  part 
of  a true  regeneration.  Under  circumstances  of  increas- 
ing friction  the  Campbells  and  some  of  their  associates 
obtained  dismission  from  the  Bush  Run  church  in  1823, 
and  organized  a new  church  in  Wellsburg,  West  Virginia, 
which  was  received  into  the  Mahoning  Baptist  Associa- 
tion of  Ohio.  This  action  put  them  beyond  the  reach  of 
the  Redstone  Baptist  Association.  The  separation  of  the 
Disciples  and  the  Baptists  was  a gradual  and  informal 
matter  and  may  be  considered  as  completed  when  the 
Mahoning  Association,  already  largely  permeated  with 
the  new  views,  though  against  the  personal  wish  of  Alex- 
ander Campbell,  gave  up  its  organization  on  account  of 
want  of  scriptural  warrant  for  such  unions. 

These  separations  were  compensated  for  by  a consid- 
erable union.  The  great  revivals  in  Kentucky  at  the  dawn 
of  the  nineteenth  century  had  been  marked  by  much  res- 
tiveness under  older  creedal  and  educational  limitations. 
The  needs  of  the  time  seemed  to  many  to  demand  the 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  301 


service  of  preachers  of  power,  whether  technically  edu- 
cated or  not,  and  an  insistence  in  public  appeal  on  a hu- 
man ability  to  respond  to  the  call  of  the  Gospel  that 
seemed  to  the  old  Calvinism  Arminian.  Both  tendencies 
were  resisted  especially  by  the  Presbyterianism  of  the 
older  type.  Among  those  greatly  moved  by  the  Kentucky 
revival  was  a Presbyterian  minister,  Barton  Warren 
Stone,  then  pastor  at  Cane  Ridge.  Out  of  the  general 
discussions  then  engendered  the  Cumberland  Presbyte- 
rian Church  was  a little  later  to  arise.  Stone  was  to 
move,  however,  in  another  direction.  One  of  his  revival- 
istic  ministerial  associates  having  been  censured  by  the 
local  presbytery  for  departure  from  the  Westminster 
Confession,  in  1801,  he,  with  Stone  and  several  brother 
ministers,  protested  and  raised  the  question  of  the  author- 
ity of  all  human  creeds,  organizing  the  short-lived  Spring- 
field  Presbytery.  They  soon  went  further  under  Stone’s 
leadership.  In  1804,  he  organized  a church  in  Cane  Ridge 
having  the  Bible  as  its  only  creed  and  taking  “Christian” 
as  its  only  name.  The  movement  grew,  though  most  of 
the  original  leaders  except  Stone  fell  away.  It  had  not 
the  strength  of  the  movement  initiated  by  the  Campbells. 
But  in  1832  Alexander  Campbell  and  Stone  came  into 
association.  The  two  streams,  though  not  technically 
united,  now  practically  flowed  together.  Stone  preferred 
the  name  “Christian,”  Campbell  “Disciple.”  Both  have 
since  been  used  largely  interchangeably.3 

With  this  association  the  Disciples  may  fairly  be  said 
to  have  been  launched  as  a denomination.  They  have 
had  a marvelous  growth  and  are  a factor  of  great  and 
increasing  importance  in  American  religious  life.  It  is 
but  fair  to  say  that  at  all  times  in  their  history  they  would 
repudiate  the  denominational  ascription.  In  their  own 

3The  use  of  the  term  “Christian”  to  designate  the  Disciples 
should  not  be  confused  with  its  application  to  the  separate  de- 
nominational body  known  as  the  American  Christian  Conven- 
tion. 


302 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


thought  they  have  always  been  both  a protest  against  sec- 
tarianism and  a union  on  the  basis  of  a return  to  simple 
and  apostolic  Christianity,  in  which  all  who  hold  the 
Christian  name  should  follow  them. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  sincerity  and  purity  of 
purpose  which  animated  the  founders  of  the  Disciples’ 
movement.  They  were  worthy  of  all  respect.  They  be- 
lieved that  in  literal  adherence  to  biblical  teaching  and 
example  the  solution  of  all  ecclesiastical  discussion  is  to 
be  found.  What  their  movement  almost  immediately 
revealed,  and  their  history  has  constantly  illustrated,  is 
that  the  supposedly  clear  teachings  of  the  Bible  are  sus- 
ceptible of  most  various  and  antagonistic  interpretations, 
in  which  men  of  equal  honesty  of  intention  will  widely 
disagree. 

II.  Foreign  Missions  and  Christian  Unity 

In  no  phase  of  the  Church’s  work  have  there  been 
greater  incentives  to  cooperation  and  union  than  in  for- 
eign missions.  In  proportion  as  the  Church  has  come  to 
appreciate  the  greatness  of  its  missionary  task  has  it 
become  conscious  of  an  underlying  unity.  With  this  has 
come  a new  sense  of  the  need  for  an  effective  embodiment 
of  that  unity  in  external  form,  for  it  is  seen  to  be  impos- 
sible for  a divided  Church  to  Christianize  the  world. 

When  the  Church  awoke  to  its  obligation  to  give  the 
Gospel  to  the  world  and  undertook  to  send  out  mission- 
aries for  that  purpose,  denominationalism  was  extended 
to  the  foreign  field.  This  could  hardly  have  been  other- 
wise. Each  communion  naturally  took  it  for  granted  that 
the  churches  which  its  representatives  were  to  establish 
should  be  identical  with  its  own.  The  missionary,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  worked  along  the  lines  in  which  he  had 
been  trained  and  built  up  tbe  new  churches  on  the  model 
with  which  he  was  familiar.  The  inevitable  consequence 
was  that  the  sectarian  divisions  of  Christendom  were 
reproduced  in  the  Orient. 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  303 


During  the  earlier  period  of  missionary  endeavor  no 
great  harm  resulted.  The  missionaries  were  so  few  in 
number  and  so  widely  scattered  that  there  was  little  over- 
lapping. In  many  great  areas  only  one  church  was  rep- 
resented. The  problem  of  denominational  adjustments 
did  not  arise  until  the  work  had  grown  to  such  an  extent 
that  missionaries  and  churches  on  the  foreign  field  came 
into  close  contact  with  one  another. 

That  time  has  long  been  here.  There  are  today  no 
fewer  than  350  foreign  missionary  boards  and  societies 
at  work,  with  more  than  24,000  missionaries  on  the  field. 
There  are  93  boards  at  work  in  China,  46  in  Japan, 
1 01  in  India.  In  most  of  the  large  cities  many  denomina- 
tions are  carrying  on  their  efforts  side  by  side.  Tokyo  and 
Shanghai  have  over  300  missionaries  each.  In  Madras 
there  are  125  ; in  Calcutta  185.  Under  such  circumstances 
the  question  of  unity  is  a vital  one.  In  many  places  over- 
lapping and  duplication  of  effort  are  well  nigh  inevitable, 
while  other  great  areas  are  entirely  unoccupied. 

The  divisions  of  Western  Christianity,  moreover,  are 
largely  meaningless  to  the  Christians  of  the  East.  Dif- 
ferences that  arose  out  of  a past  history  of  which  Chi- 
nese, Japanese,  and  Indian  Christians  know  nothing  can- 
not but  be  hopelessly  confusing  and  stand  in  the  way  of 
the  development  of  strong,  united  indigenous  churches  of 
their  own.  So  long  as  the  unity  of  Christianity  is  thus 
obscured,  it  cannot  make  the  strongest  impression  upon 
the  non-Christian  world.  There  is  a growing  conviction, 
therefore,  that  the  task  of  building  up  the  Kingdom  of 
God  in  all  the  earth  can  never  be  accomplished  until  the 
Church  addresses  itself  to  the  problem  in  a united  way. 

The  incentive  to  cooperation  and  union  on  the  foreign 
field  is  not  merely  a desire  for  administrative  efficiency. 
There  is  also  a keener  realization  than  in  the  West 
that  there  is  nothing  fundamental  to  keep  the  churches 
apart.  It  is  easier  to  discern  what  the  vital  tenets  of 
Christianity  are  when  we  are  in  the  midst  of  populations 


3°4 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


that  do  not  know  Christ  at  all.  When  we  find  ourselves, 
not  among  Methodists,  Baptists,  Presbyterians,  and  An- 
glicans, but  among  Hindus,  Buddhists,  Mohammedans, 
and  Animists,  some  things  that  formerly  seemed  impor- 
tant shrink  into  relative  insignificance,  while  others  ex- 
pand into  majestic  proportions.  The  essential  and  saving 
truths  of  our  faith  are  found  to  be  not  in  terms  of  denom- 
inational differences  but  in  terms  of  Christianity  con- 
trasted with  the  other  faiths  of  mankind.  So,  as  a matter 
of  fact,  most  missionaries,  while  accepting  the  tenets  of 
their  respective  communions,  do  preach  a common  Gospel 
which  practically  transcends  all  sectarian  barriers.  We 
find,  then,  on  the  foreign  field  precisely  what  we  might 
expect — a definite  and  unmistakable  tendency  toward  co- 
operation and  union.  Particularly  since  the  Edinburgh 
Conference  in  1910  progress  has  been  nothing  less  than 
phenomenal.  In  as  brief  a compass  as  possible  we  shall 
try  to  indicate  what  has  been  happening. 

1.  Cooperation  in  Missionary  Work 

In  cooperative  undertakings  of  various  kinds  in  local 
communities  this  spirit  of  unity  has  found  vigorous  ex- 
pression. Christian  educational  institutions  have  offered 
a particularly  wide  field  for  union  efforts.  Clearly  there 
is  no  sufficient  reason  for  three  or  four  denominational 
colleges  in  one  city  when  the  whole  number  of  pupils 
could  be  educated  more  efficiently  in  one.  Especially 
after  governments  began  to  establish  amply  equipped  in- 
stitutions was  it  necessary  that  the  Christian  institutions 
should  have  better  facilities  than  denominational  schools 
could  usually  give.  In  China  alone  there  are  over  twenty 
educational  institutions  under  interdenominational  con- 
trol, including  the  five  union  universities  in  Peking,  Nan- 
king, Tsinan-fu,  Chengtu,  and  Foochow.  In  India  there 
are  a score.  In  Latin  America,  where  at  the  time  of  the 
Panama  Congress  in  1916  there  was  not  a single  union 
institution,  there  are  today  no  fewer  than  twenty-two. 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  305 


In  Shantung  University  there  is  a remarkable  instance 
of  a union  even  of  the  High  Church  Anglican  Mission 
with  the  Northern,  Southern,  and  Canadian  Presby- 
terians, the  English  Baptists,  the  English  and  American 
Congregationalists,  and  the  Lutherans.  The  Christian 
College  for  Women  in  Madras  represents  a dozen  mis- 
sions. The  new  Women’s  Christian  University  in  Tokyo 
is  under  the  joint  direction  of  Baptist,  Methodist,  Epis- 
copal, Presbyterian,  Reformed,  Congregational,  and  Dis- 
ciples boards.  And  all  these  are  but  striking  illus- 
trations of  a host  of  others.  In  general  it  may  be 
said  that  union  in  higher  educational  work  has  be- 
come the  established  policy  of  practically  all  lead- 
ing missionary  societies.  Even  interdenominational 
theological  instruction,  begun  about  fifteen  years  ago, 
has  been  found  to  be  entirely  practicable.  There  are 
interdenominational  theological  seminaries  or  train- 
ing schools  for  Christian  workers  in  Manila,  Seoul, 
Peking,  Nanking,  Canton,  Shantung,  Fukien,  Bangalore, 
Mexico,  Porto  Rico,  Chile,  and  Brazil.  In  one  or  more 
of  these  institutions  Northern,  Southern,  and  English 
Methodists,  Northern,  Southern,  Canadian,  and  Scotch 
Presbyterians,  English  and  American  Congregationalists, 
Disciples,  the  Church  of  England,  English  and  American 
Baptists,  Reformed,  Lutherans,  United  Brethren,  and 
Friends  participate. 

In  medical  work  union  effort  is  likewise  common.  In 
various  cities  there  are  union  hospitals  and  medical  col- 
leges. The  medical  college  at  Tsinan-fu,  for  example, 
represents  three  bodies  of  Presbyterians,  the  English  Bap- 
tists, and  English  Wesleyans.  The  new  medical  school 
for  women  at  Vellore,  South  India,  is  jointly  supported 
and  controlled  by  twelve  British  and  American  societies. 
The  Severance  Medical  College  and  Hospital  in  Seoul 
is  the  medical  center  for  practically  all  the  missions  in 
the  southern  part  of  Korea. 

In  literary  work  the  American  Bible  Society  and  the 


3°6 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Christian  Literature  Societies  of  Japan  and  China  carry 
on  significant  united  efforts.  In  Korea  the  Korean  Re- 
ligious Book  and  Tract  Society  is  the  agency  of  all  the 
missions.  In  Latin  America  union  book  depositories, 
publishing  houses,  and  journals  have  been  developed  in 
several  of  the  leading  cities. 

Probably  the  most  far-reaching  line  of  cooperation  of 
all  is  the  work  of  the  so-called  Continuation  Committees. 
In  all  the  continuation  conferences  held  in  the  Orient  in 
1912-1913,  as  a result  of  the  Edinburgh  Conference,  the 
need  for  greater  cooperation  and  unity  was  urged,  and  in 
some  of  the  larger  fields  definite  agencies  for  inter-mis- 
sion conference  and  cooperation  were  formed.  In  India 
the  National  Missionary  Council  and  Provincial  Councils 
were  established.  As  a result  valuable  surveys  have  been 
made  and  common  counsel  taken  toward  public  questions 
affecting  all  the  missions,  such  as  temperance  and  educa- 
tion, including  the  question  of  the  conscience  clause. 
Principles  of  comity  have  been  developed  and  the  activi- 
ties of  the  various  agencies  more  closely  coordinated  in 
many  ways.  During  the  war  it  was  recognized  as  the 
agency  with  which  the  Government  would  deal  in  regard 
to  missionaries  of  alien  nationality.  The  National  Coun- 
cil has  recently  been  making  a survey  of  mission  prob- 
lems and  work  which  surpasses  anything  yet  undertaken. 
In  China  the  Continuation  Committee  is  made  up  in  a 
less  official  way,  being  composed  of  individuals  (one- 
third  of  them  Chinese)  from  various  missions.  As  in 
India,  it  studies  common  problems  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  work  as  a whole,  promotes  cooperation  in  educa- 
tional, literary,  evangelistic,  and  medical  work,  and  car- 
ries on  surveys.  It  has  been  making  valuable  studies  of 
the  right  attitude  for  the  Church  on  such  issues  as  polyg- 
amy, ancestor  worship,  and  mission  organization,  and 
serves  also  as  a needed  link  between  the  home  base  and 
the  field.  In  Japan  the  Continuation  Committee  is  made 
up  by  the  appointment  of  eight  persons  by  the  Federa- 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  307 


tion  of  Japanese  Churches,  eight  by  the  Conference  of 
Federated  Missions,  and  eight  others  designated  by  the 
sixteen  thus  chosen.  Its  special  significance  is  in  its  thus 
bringing  the  Japanese  churches  and  the  missions  into  a 
close  relationship  in  promoting  evangelism  and  making 
surveys  of  social  conditions.  The  Conference  of  Feder- 
ated Missions,  just  referred  to,  is  also  an  important 
agency  of  cooperation  in  Japan.  It  embraces  practically 
all  the  Protestant  missions  except  the  Anglican.  It  es- 
tablished the  Christian  Literature  Society,  publishes  the 
Japan  Evangelist  and  the  Year  Book  known  as  “The 
Christian  Movement  in  the  Japanese  Empire.”  More  re- 
cently in  Latin  America  several  interdenominational 
committees  have  resulted  from  the  Panama  Congress, 
including  the  Committee  on  Cooperation  in  Mexico,  the 
Committee  on  Conference  in  Cuba,  and  the  Committee  on 
Cooperation  in  Brazil.  All  these  are  related  to  a central 
body,  the  Committee  on  Cooperation  in  Latin  America, 
representing  all  the  boards  carrying  on  work  in  these 
fields.  In  general  it  may  be  said  of  all  these  Continuation 
Committees  that  their  functions  are  advisory,  their  au- 
thority resting  on  their  experience  and  their  intrinsic 
value.  They  provide  a most  valuable  central  organiza- 
tion which  can  speak  for  the  missionary  movement  in  a 
field  as  a whole  and  study  its  common  problems. 

Division  of  territory  is  an  expedient  which  has  been 
widely  adopted  to  minimize  the  evils  of  denominational- 
ism  in  the  interest  of  increased  efficiency.  The  adjust- 
ment in  the  Philippine  Islands  affords  one  of  the  earliest 
examples  of  a carefully  worked  out  plan.  As  soon  as 
Commodore  Dewey’s  victory  was  announced  in  1898  one 
of  the  missionary  societies  in  New  York  sent  out  a call 
for  a conference  of  all  societies  contemplating  work  in 
the  Islands,  with  a view  to  securing  the  most  effective 
distribution  of  work.  For  the  first  time  in  history,  rep- 
resentatives of  various  boards  before  occupying  a new 
field  sat  down  fraternally  to  consider  how  it  could  be 


3°8 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


done  to  the  best  advantage.  Work  was  begun  before  the 
plan  was  initiated,  but  eventually  “The  Evangelical  Union 
of  the  Philippines”  was  organized,  by  which  Baptists, 
Congregationalists,  Methodists,  Presbyterians,  and  United 
Brethren  were  assigned  distinct  fields,  so  that  in  each 
place  only  one  church  is  being  developed  and  a united 
front  is  presented  to  the  people. 

In  northern  China,  after  the  destruction  of  many 
mission  plants  by  the  Boxer  uprising,  two  missions 
reached  an  agreement  which  assigned  to  one  mission  that 
portion  of  the  city  of  Peking  and  its  suburbs  north  of  the 
Forbidden  City,  together  with  three  counties  north  and 
east,  and  assigned  to  the  other  mission  a similar  area  in  a 
different  part  of  Peking  and  its  adjacent  country.  Sim- 
ilar adjustments  were  made  elsewhere  in  China,  and  an 
all-China  conference  of  missionaries  at  Shanghai  in  1900 
voted  that,  while  ports  and  cities  of  prefectural  rank 
should  not  be  considered  the  exclusive  field  of  any  one 
board,  as  they  are  usually  strategic  bases  for  outlying 
regions,  in  other  cities  it  should  be  the  rule  not  to  enter 
fields,  where  other  communions  were  already  established. 
In  India  also  extensive  areas  have  been  mapped  out  to 
prevent  overlapping.  By  one  adjustment,  effected  in 
1913,  the  three  districts  of  Etah,  Manipuri,  and  Furruka- 
bad  were  given  over  to  the  Presbyterian  Mission,  the 
Methodists,  who  were  the  later  body  to  enter  these  dis- 
tricts, transferring  10,000  baptized  Christians  to  it  and 
being  assigned  in  turn  thirty-five  villages  in  contiguous 
districts.  Korea  - and  Madagascar  have  likewise  been 
divided  into  spheres  of  influence,  and  there  are  many 
other  illustrations  of  the  same  practice.3  In  Mexico  a 
year  ago  the  final  consummation  of  territorial  allotments 
was  reached,  resulting  in  almost  the  remaking  of  the 

’Further  illustrations  can  be  found  in  the  Report  of  Commis- 
sion VIII  to  the  World  Missionary  Conference  in  Edinburgh  in 
1910,  in  annual  reports  of  the  Foreign  Mission  Conference  of 
North  America,  and  in  the  annual  surveys  in  the  International 
Review  of  Missions. 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  309 


missionary  map  of  the  country,  with  a view  to  eliminat- 
ing overlapping  and  making  possible  the  occupation  of 
new  fields. 

2.  Building  Up  a United  Church  in  Foreign  Lands. 

Such  territorial  adjustments  are  valuable  practical  ex- 
pedients in  the  midst  of  our  present  divisions,  and  by  pro- 
moting mutual  understanding  may  be  steps  towards  a real 
union.  They  prepare  the  way  for  it  by  virtually  assum- 
ing the  equality  of  the  churches  and  an  identity  of  essen- 
tial teaching.  Obviously,  however,  such  a division  of  ter- 
ritory cannot  be  regarded  as  in  itself  a solution  of  the 
problem  presented  by  denominationalism  in  the  foreign 
field.  The  dividing  of  Christians  geographically  into  sep- 
arate bodies  may  mean  the  development  of  sectional  feel- 
ing and  provincialism  and  a consequent  serious  sacrifice 
of  national  unity. 

The  inadequacy  of  territorial  adjustments  as  more  than 
a temporary  solution  has  led  to  the  organizing  of  several 
federations  of  churches  on  the  foreign  field.  The  Federa- 
tion of  Churches  in  Japan,  formed  in  1911,  is  an  outstand- 
ing example.  It  now  comprises  twenty-four  commun- 
ions and  includes  four-fifths  of  the  Protestant  Christians. 
Its  purpose  is  “to  secure  united  action  for  the  spread  of 
the  Gospel,  for  increase  of  friendly  relations  and  of  gen- 
eral interest  in  Christianity,  to  insure  that  the  members 
stand  together  for  the  general  good  when  special  occa- 
sions arise.”  A Federation  of  Christian  Churches  in 
India,  growing  out  of  a conference  in  1909,  includes 
all  the  Methodist,  Presbyterian,  and  South  India  United 
Churches,  the  Missions  of  the  Friends  and  Disciples  of 
Christ,  and  the  American  Marathi  Mission  (Congrega- 
tional). Its  object  is  declared  to  be  “to  attain  a more 
perfect  manifestation  of  the  unity  of  His  disciples  for 
which  the  Redeemer  prayed,  by  fostering  and  encourag- 
ing the  sentiment  and  practice  of  union.”  The  federating 
churches  “agree  to  recognize  each  other’s  discipline  and 


3io 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


to  welcome  members  of  other  federating  churches  to 
Christian  fellowship  and  communion.”  China  has  several 
provincial  councils.  Korea  has  a Federal  Council  of 
Missions.  Africa  and  Madagascar  have  several  district 
federations.  In  fact,  almost  every  important  field  has 
one  or  more  such  organizations,  which,  while  having  no 
ecclesiastical  or  legislative  power,  exert  considerable  in- 
fluence. 

But  the  movement  toward  unity  has  gone  further  than 
local  cooperation  in  educational  and  medical  work,  gen- 
eral division  of  territory,  or  federation.  Organic  unions 
of  denominations  have  in  several  instances  been  effected. 
The  Methodist  Church  in  Japan,  established  in  1907,  in- 
cludes all  branches  of  Methodism.  The  Church  of  Christ 
in  Japan  has  long  been  made  up  of  six  Presbyterian 
and  Reformed  communions.  The  English,  Canadian, 
and  American  branches  of  the  Anglican  Church  have  been 
united  in  China,  India,  and  Japan.  So  also  have  the 
Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Churches  in  varying  de- 
grees in  India,  China,  Korea,  Mexico,  and  Brazil.  In 
China  the  Federal  Council  of  the  twelve  churches  of  the 
Presbyterian  order,  established  in  1907,  has  now  resolved 
itself  into  a provisional  General  Assembly.  The  Lu- 
therans in  India  are  united.  In  China  the  Lutheran  mis- 
sions of  the  United  States,  Norway,  Sweden,  Finland, 
Denmark,  and  Germany  are  now  considering  a definite 
‘‘Constitution  of  the  Lutheran  Church  of  China.” 

Even  in  uniting  different  denominational  groups  prog- 
ress has  been  made,  although  in  many  cases  the  consum- 
mation of  present  tendencies  lies  in  the  future.  In  Japan 
as  early  as  1872  a convention  of  Prot«6tant  missionaries 
adopted  a resolution  agreeing  to  use  their  influence  “to 
secure  as  far  as  possible  identity  of  name  and  organiza- 
tion in  the  native  churches.”  In  1887-1889  a more  per- 
sistent effort  was  made  to  unite  the  Congregational  and 
Presbyterian  groups  of  Japanese  churches.  Neither  of 
these  efforts,  however,  came  to  fruition,  and  the  lines  of 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  31 1 


denominational  cleavage  among  the  missionaries  were 
perpetuated  among  the  Japanese,  although  a strong  desire 
for  union  still  prevails. 

In  China  several  local  unions  have  been  formed,  one  of 
the  most  striking  being  that  at  Tsinan-fu  between  the  Eng- 
lish Baptists  and  the  American  Presbyterians,  begun  in 
1906.  An  agreement  provides  : 

“That  there  be  one  united  Protestant  church  for  the 
whole  Tsinan-fu  city  and  suburbs  . . . that  entrance  to  the 
church  shall  be  by  either  of  the  recognized  modes  of 
baptism  at  the  option  of  the  candidate  . . . that  the  Union 
Church  shall  be  affiliated  with  the  Presbyterian  and  Bap- 
tist Churches  in  the  following  manner: 

1.  That  delegates  be  sent  to  Tsinan-fu  Presbytery  and 
Baptist  Union  with  voting  powers,  provided  these  bodies 
are  willing  so  to  receive  them. 

2.  That  the  spiritual  affairs  of  the  church  shall  be  ad- 
ministered by  a Council  consisting  of  the  pastor  and 
other  church  officers  and,  in  addition,  two  ordained  min- 
isters, oje  appointed  by  the  Tsinan-fu  Presbytery  and  the 
other  by  the  Baptist  Union. 

3.  That  cases  of  appeal  shall  be  referred  for  decision 
to  a commission  to  be  appointed  by  the  Presbytery  of 
Tsinan-fu  and  the  Baptist  Union. 

4.  That  statistics  of  the  Union  Church  be  reported  to 
the  Tsinan-fu  Presbytery  and  the  Baptist  Union.” 

A significant  organic  union  reaching  over  a large  area 
of  the  Presbyterian  and  the  Congregational  Churches  in 
South  Fukien  was  decided  upon  in  1918.  The  churches 
established  by  the  missions  of  the  Reformed  Church  in 
America  and  the  English  Presbyterian  Church  have  from 
the  beginning  been  united  in  an  independent  Chinese 
church,  with  a presbyterian  form  of  government.  The 
new  union  will  result  in  the  inclusion  of  about  8,000 
communicants  of  the  three  denominations  in  one  united 
church. 

The  Centenary  Missionary  Conference  in  Shanghai  in 
1907  declared:  “In  planting  the  Church  of  Christ  on 


312 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Chinese  soil,  we  desire  only  to  plant  one  Church.”  In  the 
same  year  the  National  Council  of  the  Presbyterian  and 
Reformed  Churches  of  China  expressed  the  “earnest  de- 
sire that  all  branches  of  the  Church  of  Christ  in  China 
may  ultimately  come  together  ...  in  the  manifested  unity 
of  the  body  of  Christ  on  earth.”  In  April,  1918,  a defi- 
nite step  in  that  direction  was  taken  when  a group  of  Con- 
gregationalists  from  both  American  and  British  societies 
were  sent  by  their  bodies  to  the  Provisional  General  As- 
sembly of  the  churches  of  the  presbyterian  order  to  ex- 
press a desire  for  federation  with  them,  the  object  being 
“such  comparison  of  views  and  adjustment  of  practice 
as  shall  prepare  the  way  for  ultimate  organic  union.” 
A doctrinal  basis  and  plan  of  union  are  now  under 
consideration. 

In  India  the  South  India  United  Church  was  formed  in 
1908  by  a union  of  the  missionaries  and  Indian  Christians 
of  missions  of  the  American  Board  (Congregational), 
the  London  Missionary  Society  (Congregational),  the 
Reformed  Church  in  America,  and  the  United  Free 
Church  of  Scotland.  The  declared  object  of  the  union 
was  “to  bind  the  churches  together  into  one  body  with  a 
view  to  developing  a self-supporting,  self-governing,  and 
self-propagating  Indian  Church,  which  shall  present  a 
united  living  testimony,  and  worthily  represent  to  the 
world  the  Christian  ideal.”  A constitution  was  adopted 
which  included  a confession  of  faith  and  provision  for 
administration  through  local  churches,  district  councils, 
and  a General  Assembly.  Thirty  thousand  Christians  are 
now  included  in  this  church.  So  satisfactorily  has  this 
union  stood  the  test  of  time  that  a similar  union  of  Pres- 
byterians and  Congregationalists  in  Western  India  has 
been  proposed. 

Within  the  past  year  a movement  even  more  far-reach- 
ing has  begun  in  India.  It  contemplates  nothing  less  than 
the  organic  union  of  the  three  leading  churches  of  South 
India — the  Anglican,  the  South  Indian  United  (already 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  313 


including  Congregational,  Reformed,  and  Presbyterian 
bodies),  and  the  Syrian.4  The  plan  grew  out  of  a con- 
ference of  Indian  Christian  ministers  at  Tranquebar  in 
May,  1919.  The  leaders  of  the  three  bodies  have  unoffi- 
cially agreed  upon  forming  a truly  Indian  Church,  in 
which  the  Congregational,  Presbyterian,  and  Episcopal 
polities  shall  be  united  into  one  and  which  will  represent 
the  three  great  divisions  of  Christianity — the  Western 
Church,  the  Eastern  Church,  and  the  Free  Protestant 
Churches.  If  the  union  should  be  consummated  it  would 
be  the  first  time  since  the  Reformation  that  the  breach 
between  the  episcopal  and  the  non-episcopal  churches  has 
been  spanned,  and  the  first  time  since  the  division  between 
the  East  and  the  West  in  the  eleventh  century  that  bodies 
related  to  these  two  great  branches  of  the  Church  have 
ever  come  together. 

The  widely  discussed  Kikuyu  Conference  in  1912  pro- 
posed a scheme  for  federating  Presbyterian,  Anglican, 
and  other  societies  working  in  British  East  Africa.  Vig- 
orous opposition  by  the  Bishop  of  Zanzibar  led  to  a refer- 
ence of  the  matter  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  At 
a second  conference  at  Kikuyu  in  1919  a proposal  for  an 
alliance  more  along  the  lines  of  the  Archbishop’s  concilia- 
tory statement  was  put  forth.  . A constitution  was  drawn 
up  by  official  representatives  of  the  Church  Missionary 
Society  (Anglican),  the  Church  of  Scotland  Mission 
(Presbyterian),  the  Africa  Inland  Mission,  the  United 
Methodist  Church  Mission,  and  the  British  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society.  It  recognized  that  “in  existing  conditions 
inter-communion  between  Episcopal  and  non-Episcopal 
communions  is  not  yet  possible,”  but  they  definitely  af- 
firmed the  need  of  a united  church  and  say  they  will  not 
rest  until  they  all  share  one  ministry.  In  the  meantime, 

4The  Syrian  Church  in  India  traces  its  history  back  to  the  fourth 
century  and  tradition  even  says  that  it  was  founded  by  the  Apostle 
Thomas  in  the  first  century.  During  the  last  century  it  has  been 
quickened  to  new  life.  Bishop  Abraham,  one  of  its  outstanding 
leaders,  was  educated  at  Wycliffe  College,  Toronto. 


3i4 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


the  statement  says,  the  several  bodies  “resolve  to  form 
an  alliance  with  a view  to  moving  along  agreed  lines  of 
action  appropriate  to  each  society  so  as  to  prepare  the 
way  for  further  organic  unity.  To  the  council  thus  es- 
tablished each  of  the  constituent  bodies  is  to  send  rep- 
resentatives, and  it  proposes  to  organize  united  educa- 
tional, medical,  and  social  work.6 

These  are  but  a few  illustrations  of  movements  toward 
organic  union  on  mission  fields,  and  new  ones  are  arising 
almost  every  year.  It  is  becoming  increasingly  clear  that 
the  divisions  of  the  West,  growing  out  of  old  controver- 
sies of  which  Eastern  Christians  know  nothing,  mean 
little  or  nothing  to  them.  What  possible  reason  is  there 
why  the  Christians  of  Korea  should  be  separated  into 
Northern  Presbyterians  and  Southern  Presbyterians  be- 
cause a civil  war  was  waged  in  the  United  States  half  a 
century  ago?  Why  should  the  Christians  of  India  be 
labeled  English  Wesleyans,  German  Lutherans,  and 
American  Baptists?  Of  such  negligible  significance  are 
our  denominational  lines  to  them  and  of  such  hindrance 
to  the  development  of  a strong  Christian  Church,  that  it 
is  not  improbable  that  the  Christians  of  Asia  will  unite 
whether  we  want  them  to  or  not.  In  a communication 
from  the  Marathi  Mission  of  the  American  Board  to  the 
Western  India  Mission  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  pro- 
posing an  organic  union,  this  striking  sentence  occurred : 
“It  is  absolutely  certain  that  the  difference  between  the 
Congregational  and  Presbyterian  Churches  cannot  hold 
Indian  Christians  apart,  unless  foreign  missionaries  con- 
tinue to  perpetuate  such  divisions.”  These  Oriental 
Christians  may  divide  later,  but  if  they  do,  it  should  be 
on  issues  that  are  of  vital  significance  to  them,  not  on 
alien  ones  imposed  from  the  West. 

From  what  has  been  said  it  is  clear  that  the  missionary 

''For  a fuller  discussion  of  the  movements  toward  church  union 
now  taking  place  in  India,  China,  and  Africa,  see  the  Inter- 
national Review  of  Missions,  January,  1920. 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  315 


body  as  a whole  has  developed  a unity  that  is  consider- 
ably in  advance  of  that  which  prevails  in  the  lands  from 
which  the  missionaries  come.  That  this  vigorous  move- 
ment for  unity,  nourished  both  by  the  urgency  of  the 
task  and  by  the  relative  meaninglessness  of  our  divisions 
on  the  foreign  field,  should  exert  a strong  reflex  influ- 
ence on  our  missionary  societies  at  home,  and  conse- 
quently upon  our  churches,  is  a natural  consequence. 
This  has  manifested  itself  particularly  in  conferences  on 
foreign  missions  that  have  been  of  far-reaching  effect. 
The  first  of  such  conferences  were  held  in  New  York 
and  in  London  as  long  ago  as  1854.  In  1900  there  was 
convened  in  New  York  the  memorable  Ecumenical  Mis- 
sionary Conference,  the  sixth  in  number,  representing 
forty-eight  countries.  In  1910  all  previous  gatherings 
were  eclipsed  by  the  World  Missionary  Conference  in 
Edinburgh,  unique  both  for  the  catholicity  of  its  repre- 
sentation and  for  the  spirit  of  unity  that  pervaded  it. 
Its  membership  was  drawn  from  every  communion  ex- 
cept the  Roman  and  the  Greek  Churches.  Its  work  still 
went  on  after  the  Conference  through  its  Continuation 
Committee,  representing  no  fewer  than  thirty  commun- 
ions, including  Anglicans  and  Nonconformists,  the  Es- 
tablished and  Free  Churches  of  Scotland,  the  State  and 
Independent  Churches  of  the  Continent,  and  half  a dozen 
communions  in  the  United  States.  This  was  not  an  ec- 
clesiastical body  and  had  no  jurisdiction  over  the 
churches,  but  it  has  had  an  unmistakable  influence  in 
promoting  the  spirit  of  united  approach  to  common  tasks. 
During  the  war  it  was  inactive,  but  the  so-called  “Emer- 
gency Committee  of  Cooperating  Missions,”  temporarily 
composed  of  representatives  of  countries  outside  the 
Central  Powers,  was  constituted,  in  order  that  there 
might  be  a body  to  correlate  plans  for  dealing  with  com- 
mon interests.  In  June  of  this  year,  1920,  the  Inter- 
national Missionary  Conference  at  Crans,  Switzerland, 
merged  these  two  committees  into  a new  International 


3*6 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Missionary  Committee,  whose  members  are  to  be  elected 
by  the  respective  national  missionary  conferences.  The 
Congress  on  Christian  Work  in  Latin  America,  held  at 
Panama  in  1916,  was  another  epoch-making  interde- 
nominational gathering,  resulting  in  the  establishment 
of  the  permanent  Committee  on  Cooperation  in  Latin 
America,  which  represents  all  Protestant  boards  carry- 
ing on  missionary  activities  there. 

It  would  not  be  too  much  to  say  that  with  but  one  or 
two  exceptions  the  leading  missionary  boards  are  thor- 
oughly committed  to  a policy  of  cooperation  and  that 
most  of  them  heartily  desire  one  united  Church  in  each 
of  the  foreign  fields.  Commission  VIII  of  the  Edinburgh 
Conference  declared  that  “the  divisions  within  the  Chris- 
tian Church  weaken  its  testimony  and  confuse  the  total 
impression  made  by  Christianity  on  the  minds  of  the  non- 
Christian  peoples.  The  question  necessarily  forces  itself 
on  those  immediately  engaged  in  the  work  of  Christian- 
izing the  great  nations  of  the  East,  whether  they  are  con- 
tent to  plant  in  these  countries  a multitude  of  Christian 
sects,  or  whether  the  real  purpose  of  missionary  effort 
is  not  rather  to  plant  in  each  land  one  united  Church  of 
Christ,  penetrating  and  strongly  influencing  the  national 
life  of  the  people  and  at  the  same  time  bound  in  the  unity 
of  the  spirit  to  the  Church  throughout  the  world.” 

A conference  of  seventy-five  representatives  of  twenty- 
eight  North  American  boards  having  work  in  China  in 
1912  adopted  the  following  resolution: 

“This  Conference  desires  to  assure  the  missions  in  the 
strongest  possible  manner  of  its  unreserved  approval  of 
the  efforts  to  accomplish  the  union  of  the  Christian 
Church  in  China  and  promises  the  missions  that  they  will 
have  in  such  efforts  the  hearty  support  of  the  members 
of  this  Conference.” 

In  many  permanent  missionary  organizations  at  the 
home  base  the  principle  of  cooperation  is  applied.  The 
Foreign  Missions  Conference  of  North  America,  founded 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND 


3U 


in  1893,  together  with  the  Committee  of  Reference 
and  Counsel  and  such  agencies  as  the  Board  of  Mission- 
ary Preparation  initiated  by  it,  is  the  outstanding 
example.  The  Missionary  Education  Movement,  founded 
in  1902,  and  the  Federation  of  Women’s  Boards  of  For- 
eign Missions,  established  in  1913,  also  carry  on  impor- 
tant work,  particularly  in  connection  with  promoting  mis- 
sion study  and  preparing  literature  therefor.  On  all 
sides,  however,  there  is  a growing  recognition  that  far 
greater  harmony  of  effort  is  imperative.  The  world  task 
before  the  Church  is  so  enormous  and  is  confronted  by 
such  tremendous  obstacles  that  nothing  less  than  the  full- 
est degree  of  unity  that  can  possibly  be  attained  can  ever 
be  counted  enough. 

And  this  development  affects  not  only  the  mission 
boards  at  home,  but  also  the  churches  themselves.  We 
cannot  hope  that  this  movement  will  advance  to  the  de- 
gree that  all  agree  to  be  essential  for  the  foreign  field 
unless  the  churches  at  home  can  keep  pace  with  that  de- 
velopment. The  Church  in  China  and  the  Church  in 
America  being  one  Church,  we  shall  not  long  be  able  to 
develop  united  churches  there  if  we  have  disunited 
churches  here.  The  truth  of  the  statement  made  by 
Commission  VII  of  the  Edinburgh  Conference  becomes 
constantly  more  apparent:  “In  the  matter  of  unity  the 
mission  field  is  leading  the  way,  but  it  does  not  seem  that 
the  movement  can  advance  far  with  safety  apart  from 
the  cooperation  of  the  Church  at  home.” 

II.  Religious  Education  and  Christian  Unity 

The  Sunday  school  movement  in  America  had  its  be- 
ginning in  an  effort  that  was  regardless  of  denominational 
lines.  For  purposes  of  historical  record  it  should  be  re- 
garded as  dating  from  the  organization  of  “The  Society 
for  the  Institution  and  Support  of  First  Day  or  Sunday 
Schools”  in  Philadelphia  in  1790.  The  society  was  a 
voluntary  one,  made  up  of  Christians  of  various  churches, 


3*8 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


outside  of  official  ecclesiastical  sanction.  This  was  fol- 
lowed by  the  organization  of  the  “New  York  Sunday 
School  Union”  in  1816  and  the  “Philadelphia  Sunday 
School  Union”  in  1817.  The  rapid  spread  of  the  move- 
ment and  the  multiplication  of  “union”  societies  for  its 
further  promotion  and  support  led  in  1824  to  the  found- 
ing of  the  “American  Sunday  School  Union.”  Its  stated 
objects  were  “to  concentrate  the  efforts  of  Sabbath-school 
associations  in  different  sections  of  the  country;  to 
strengthen  the  hands  of  the  friends  of  pious  instruction 
on  the  Lord’s  Day ; to  disseminate  useful  information ; to 
circulate  moral  and  religious  publications  in  every  part 
of  the  land;  and  to  endeavor  to  plant  a Sunday  school 
wherever  there  is  a population.” 

1.  The  Development  of  Cooperation 

Beginning  soon  after  this  union  effort  and  thereafter 
parallel  with  its  development  was  the  growth  of  denomi- 
national organization  of  Sunday  school  work.  Among 
the  first  churches  .to  establish  denominational  Sunday 
school  societies  were  the  following:  Protestant  Episcopal 
(1826),  Methodist  Episcopal  (1827),  Congregational 
(1832),  Presbyterian,  U.  S.  A.  (1833),  and  the  Northern 
Baptist  Convention  (1840).  Others  followed  in  rapid 
succession. 

At  the  initiative  of  the  American  Sunday  School  Union 
there  was  held  in  1832  the  first  national  convention  of 
Sunday  school  leaders,  which  in  1869  became  an  estab- 
lished triennial  feature  (since  1914,  quadrennial)  of  the 
organized  cooperative  work  in  this  field.  Beginning  with 
1875  these  gatherings  assumed  international  scope,  and 
have  since  been  designated  International  Sunday  School 
Conventions.  Parallel  with  the  development  of  these 
conventions  was  that  of  Sunday  school  teachers’  insti- 
tutes, dating  from  1861  and  patterned  after  similar  gath- 
erings of  public  school  teachers.  The  organization  of 
state  and  county  Sunday  school  associations  began  in 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  319 


1856.  The  National  Convention  of  1869  created  a per- 
manent Executive  Committee,  out  of  which  and  around 
which  has  grown  up  the  larger  association  which  since 
1872 — the  date  of  the  adoption  of  the  International  Uni- 
form Sunday  School  Lessons  and  the  appointment  of  the 
International  Sunday  School  Lesson  Committee — has 
been  known  as  the  International  Sunday  School  Asso- 
ciation. 

Both  the  American  Sunday  School  Union  and  the  In- 
ternational Sunday  School  Association  have  been  purely 
voluntary  agencies  with  no  organic  relationship  to  the 
official  denominational  boards  and  societies.  Strictly 
speaking,  therefore,  both  organizations  should  be  desig- 
nated as  undenominational  rather  than  interdenomina- 
tional. Both,  however,  deserve  great  credit  for  pioneer 
work  in  Sunday  school  promotion  and  extension.  The 
American  Sunday  School  Union  has  devoted  itself  prin- 
cipally to  the  organization  of  so-called  “union”  Sunday 
schools  in  frontier  and  out-of-the-way  communities,  and 
in  supplying  these  schools  with  inexpensive  lesson  helps 
and  other  literature.  The  work  of  the  International  and 
State  Associations  has  been  confined  principally  to  the 
holding  of  institutes  and  conventions  and  to  the  promo- 
tion and  administrative  supervision  of  cooperative  Sun- 
day school  activities  in  local  communities.  One  other 
notable  service  rendered  by  these  voluntary  agencies  has 
been  the  stimulation  of  more  aggressive  organization,  the 
rapid  development  of  which  during  the  past  two  decades 
has  made  imperative  a closer  cooperative  relationship 
between  the  various  denominational  Sunday  school  boards 
and  societies  themselves.  The  Sunday  school  and  reli- 
gious educational  work  of  all  of  the  leading  evangelical 
denominations  in  the  United  States  and  Canada  has  for 
some  years  been  thoroughly  organized  and  the  denomi- 
national Sunday  school  organizations  and  publishing 
societies  are  now  thoroughly  committed  to  the  principle 
of  interdenominational  cooperation. 


320 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


The  urgent  need  for  closer  official  cooperation  resulted 
first  in  the  organization  of  the  Sunday  School  Editorial 
Association  in  1901,  which  in  1910  became  the  Sunday 
School  Council  of  Evangelical  Denominations,  the  first 
organization  representing  the  two  fundamental  principles 
of,  first,  denominational  autonomy  in  matters  of  Sunday 
school  administration  and  instruction,  and,  second,  direct 
cooperative  control  by  the  denominations  of  union  activ- 
ities. The  importance  of  the  Sunday  School  Council  for 
all  subsequent  developments  of  cooperative  work  in  this 
field  is  suggested  by  the  preamble  to  the  Constitution  and 
by  the  statement  of  aim : 

“Recognizing  the  responsibility  of  each  denomination, 
through  its  properly  constituted  Sunday  school  authori- 
ties, to  direct  its  own  Sunday  school  work,  and  believing 
that  much  Sunday  school  effort  is  common  work,  there- 
fore, for  the  sake  of  economy,  educational  betterment,  and 
Christian  brotherhood,  we  organize  ourselves  into  a body 
under  the  following  constitution.  . . . 

“The  object  of  this  organization  shall  be  to  advance  the 
Sunday  school  interests  of  the  cooperating  denomina- 
tions : 

(1)  By  conferring  together  in  matters  of  common  in- 
terest. 

(2)  By  giving  expression  to  our  common  views  and 
decisions. 

(3)  By  cooperative  action  on  matters  concerning  edu- 
cational, editorial,  missionary,  and  publishing  activities.” 

During  the  ten  years  of  its  existence  the  Sunday  School 
Council  has  been  instrumental  in  the  establishment  of 
definite  educational  standards  in  Sunday  school  work 
covering  the  items  of  organization,  curriculum,  teacher- 
training, and  administrative  supervision.  It  has  placed 
at  the  disposal  of  each  denominational  board  and  society 
the  experience  and  programs  of  the  other  boards,  and 
has  given  impulse  and  direction  to  the  further  growth  of 
the  cooperative  movement  in  Sunday  school  work.  The 
personal  contacts  established  through  the  organized  asso- 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  321 


ciation  of  denominational  Sunday  school  editors,  secre- 
taries, and  publishers  led  promptly  to  the  undertaking  of 
cooperative  publishing  enterprises  through  syndication 
on  a large  scale.  The  introduction  of  the  International 
Graded  Sunday  School  Lessons  (1909-1914)  and  the 
subsequent  rapid  development  of  teacher-training  courses 
and  textbooks  gave  further  impetus  to  such  syndication, 
which  has  uniformly  resulted  in  improved  quality  of 
publications,  reduced  costs,  wider  circulations,  and  a 
general  advance  in  standards  and  ideals. 

Since  the  organization  of  the  Council  the  denomina- 
tions of  the  United  States  and  Canada  have  steadily  been 
drawn  closer  together  in  every  department  of  Sunday 
school  work.  One  by  one  cooperative  activities  in  this 
field  have  been  transferred  from  the  supervision  of 
purely  voluntary  or  undenominational  organizations  and 
placed  under  the  joint  control  of  the  organized  Sunday 
school  agencies  of  the  denominations.  In  1912  the 
World’s  Sunday  School  Association,  until  then  an  inde- 
pendent body  (engaged  particularly  in  promoting  Sun- 
day school  work  on  the  mission  fields),  changed  its 
constitution  so  as  to  admit  to  its  executive  com- 
mittee the  official  representatives  of  both  Sunday 
school  and  missionary  boards,  the  denominational  Sun- 
day school  representatives  being  appointed  from  and 
by  the  Sunday  School  Council.  The  reorganization  of 
the  International  Sunday  School  Lessons  Committee  upon 
the  same  general  principles  occurred  in  1914.  During  the 
past  four  years  negotiations  have  been  in  progress  be- 
tween the  International  Sunday  School  Association  and 
the  Sunday  School  Council,  with  a view  to  establishing 
some  effective  method  of  coordinating  all  cooperative 
efforts  in  Sunday  school  work  under  a unified  plan  of 
overhead  supervision  which  would  give  to  the  respon- 
sible denominational  boards  full  representation  both  in 
planning  and  executing  all  union  activities,  while  at  the 
same  time  conserving  the  elements  of  democratic  volun- 


322 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


tary  cooperation  represented  in  the  plans  of  organiza- 
tion of  the  International  and  State  Sunday  School  Asso- 
ciations. 

During  the  early  months  of  the  year  1920  final 
agreement  was  reached  by  the  International  Sunday 
School  Association  and  the  Sunday  School  Council  with 
regard  to  the  reorganization  of  both  of  these  bodies. 
Their  actual  reorganization  on  the  basis  of  the  agree- 
ment reached  was  begun  at  a meeting  in  Buffalo  in 
June.  In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  this  reor- 
ganization, the  denominational  Sunday  school  boards  will 
hereafter  appoint,  and  have  since  appointed,  half  of 
the  members  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Inter- 
national Association.  The  other  half  will  be  elected  as 
heretofore  by  states  and  provinces.  The  same  division 
of  representation  applies  to  membership  in  the  reorgan- 
ized state  associations,  and  by  implication  to  county  and 
city  associations  also.  At  the  same  time  the  Sunday 
School  Council,  which  heretofore  has  consisted  wholly 
of  the  official  Sunday  school  representatives  of  denomi- 
national boards  and  societies,  has  now  admitted  into  its 
membership  field  representatives  of  organized  Sunday 
school  work,  both  denominational  and  interdenomina- 
tional. This  procedure  is  understood  to  be  a first  step 
towards  a complete  merging  of  the  two  organizations, 
the  Association  and  the  Council,  “under  a new  charter 
and  with  a new  name.”  Meanwhile  the  reorganized  As- 
sociation and  Council  provide  two  effective  agencies  for 
cooperation,  one  in  the  field  of  Sunday  school  promotion 
and  extension,  the  other  in  the  field  of  intensive  develop- 
ment of  an  educational  program  for  the  Sunday  school.’ 


“Any  full  consideration  of  the  bearing  of  the  movement  for 
religious  education  on  Christian  unity  would  have  to  deal  with 
the  significant  influence  of  the  Religious  Education  Associa- 
tion. We  are  here,  however,  concentrating  attention  upon  the 
official  agencies  of  the  churches.  For  the  work  of  the  Council 
of  Church  Boards  of  Education  in  the  college  field,  see  p.  138 
of  this  report. 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  323 


2.  The  Present  Necessity  for  Greater  Cooperation. 

The  significance  of  these  adjustments  in  organization 
arises  from  the  fact  that  they  have  been  deliberately 
made  in  the  interest  of  Christian  unity  and  greater  effi- 
ciency in  service.  They  have  been  consummated  at  a 
time  when  the  churches,  after  the  World  War,  are  all 
alike  facing  both  a national  crisis  and  a world  opportu- 
nity in  religious  education.  The  preservation  and  fur- 
ther increase  of  the  moral  and  spiritual  values  that  the 
war  has  set  in  clearer  light  depend  upon  programs  and 
processes  of  religious  education.  The  American  churches 
have  not  yet  discovered  the  possibilities  inherent  in  a 
program  of  Christian  teaching  that  shall  succeed  in  en- 
listing the  religious  purposes  and  training  activities 
of  united  Christianity  for  the  aggressive  worldwide  pro- 
motion of  Christian  democracy,  which  is  the  democracy 
of  service.  That  discovery  needs  now  to  be  made  and 
a more  adequate  program  of  religious  education  for  the 
new  age  attempted.  In  the  formulation  of  such  a pro- 
gram and  in  its  execution  the  Sunday  school  forces  of 
North  America  may  rightly  be  expected  to  lead  the  way. 
They  can  do  so  adequately  only  as  they  are  effectively 
united. 

Much  has  already  been  accomplished  by  way  of  prep- 
aration. The  principles  and  ideals  of  religious  nurture 
and  training  are  gradually  becoming  fairly  well  estab- 
lished. The  better  tools  and  equipment  that  are  neces- 
sary, including  materials  of  instruction,  are  rapidly  gain- 
ing recognition  and  acceptance.  The  development  of  the 
curriculum  is  proceeding  satisfactorily.  The  type  of  ar- 
chitecture, housing  facilities,  and  equipment  are  yielding 
to  the  demand  for  educational  efficiency.  Trained 
teachers  are  increasing  in  numbers  and  will  soon  be  con- 
sidered indispensable.  With  these  gains  made,  with  the 
entire  program  of  the  church  school  upon  a sound  reli- 
gious and  educational  basis,  the  larger  mission  and  re- 


324 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


sponsibility  of  the  Church  to  the  whole  community  should 
once  more  be  made  a focal  point  of  intelligent  effort. 
Concretely,  this  will  mean  a revival  of  religious  nurture 
in  the  home.  It  will  mean  a new  appreciation  and  a fuller 
appropriation  of  the  religious  values  in  public  school  sub- 
jects and  the  opportunities  for  character  formation 
through  the  public  school.  It  will  mean  interchurch  co- 
operation in  providing  church  school  facilities  with  sys- 
tematic religious  instruction  for  all  the  children  of  the 
community,  so  distributed  with  regard  to  time  and  place 
as  to  make  this  instruction  easily  accessible  to  all.  It  will 
mean  the  prompt  extension  and  supplementing  of  the 
work  of  the  Sunday  school  through  week-day  classes  in 
religious  education.  But  this  approach  to  the  community 
and  this  impact  upon  it  cannot  be  made  by  the  churches 
separately.  A united  program  is  simply  indispensable. 


The  bearing  of  the  foreign  missionary  enterprise  and 
the  Sunday  school  movement  on  church  unity  are  only 
typical  of  other  great  phases  of  the  Church’s  work. 
The  problems  of  developing  a more  effective  program  of 
evangelism,  of  enlisting  life  more  adequately  in  Christian 
service,  of  Christianizing  our  social  relations  at  home,  of 
bringing  Christian  principles  to  bear  on  economic  life, 
of  infusing  our  whole  educational  system  with  the  reli- 
gious ideal,  of  permeating  our  international  relations  with 
the  Christian  spirit — all  these  and  other  tasks  that  have 
been  increasingly  laying  hold  of  the  conscience  of  the 
Church  are  challenging  us  to  a degree  of  united  endeavor 
never  yet  realized.  To  the  conviction  of  the  inner  one- 
ness of  the  Church  of  Christ  has  been  added  a growing 
vision  that  only  the  outward  expression  of  that  unity  in 
the  most  effective  way  can  meet  the  world’s  appalling 
need. 


PART  III 
THE  FUTURE 


CHAPTER  X 


PRINCIPLES  WHICH  UNDERLIE  FURTHER 
PROGRESS 

This  committee  has  been  given  no  commission  to  out- 
line any  plan  of  church  union  or  of  larger  Christian  coop- 
eration. Its  function  has  been  to  examine  our  present 
situation  and  the  historic  background  behind  it  and  in 
this  concluding  section  of  its  report  to  draw  out  such 
observations  and  principles  as  its  examination  has  sug- 
gested. Yet  we  would  be  untrue  to  our  own  conviction 
and  the  unique  opportunity  which  this  privilege  of  com- 
mon study  has  afforded  if  we  did  not  add  to  this  general 
formulation  of  principles  some  indication  as  to  the  lines 
along  which  we  believe  that  the  movement  for  church 
union  must  develop  in  the  immediate  future  and  the  na- 
ture of  the  steps  which  need  now  to  be  taken.  We  shall 
present  no  program  requiring  adoption  or  rejection  in 
detail,  but  only  suggestions  as  to  what  such  a program 
should  contain  and  certain  considerations  which  should 
influence  those  who  are  shaping  it. 

At  the  outset  we  desire  to  record  the  conviction,  which 
has  been  formed  in  us  as  a result  of  this  investigation, 
that  the  movement  toward  union  is  an  irresistible  move- 
ment. It  may  be  delayed,  it  cannot  be  permanently 
checked.  The  historical  sections  of  this  study  make  it 
clear  that  the  struggle  of  the  Christian  spirit  to  express 
its  inward  unity  in  outward  forms  of  Christian  union  is 
as  old  as  Christianity.  From  the  beginning  earnest  men 
have  been  dissatisfied  with  their  divisions  and  have  sought 
to  draw  together  as  one  all  those  who  acknowledge  Jesus 
Christ  as  Lord.  The  hope  of  such  union  is  manifestly 
a deathless  hope.  Whether  or  not  men  have  agreed  as 

327 


328 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


to  the  divine  ideal  for  the  Church,  or  indeed  have  had 
any  sure  conviction  as  to  what  that  ideal  might  be,  they 
have  still  been  moved  by  an  irrepressible  longing  for 
something  that  should  embody  more  richly  than  any  ex- 
perience which  they  had  yet  had  the  prayer  of  Christ, 
“that  they  may  all  be  one.”  If  these  men  of  the  ages 
past  were  warranted  in  their  continuing  hope,  surely  we 
are  right  today  in  seeking  something  further  than  we  as 
yet  possess.  The  situation  that  we  face  today  is  indis- 
putably unstable  and  transitory.  None  of  us  may  dog- 
matize as  to  the  path  of  future  development,  but  all  of  us 
are  warranted  by  the  history  of  Christian  thought  and  by 
the  conditions  of  our  day  in  looking  for  some  way  that 
shall  give  larger  expression  to  the  true  mind  of  Christ. 

But  this  confidence  in  the  sure  development  of  church 
unity,  however  well  justified,  is  not  of  itself  a substitute 
for  clear  thinking  or  earnest  effort.  Union  when  it  comes 
will  be  what  we  who  unite  make  it.  What,  then,  can  we 
say  to  describe  its  character  and  to  define  the  methods 
by  which  it  is  to  be  realized? 

In  what  follows  we  shall  consider  in  succession : 

1.  The  principles  which  define  the  nature  of  the  union 
to  be  sought. 

2.  The  principles  which  define  the  method  by  which 
it  is  to  be  attained. 

3.  The  conclusions  which  follow  as  to  some  of  the  next 
steps  to  be  taken. 

I.  Principles  Wiiicii  Define  the  Nature  of  the 
Union  to  Be  Sought 

1.  The  union  that  we  seek  must  be  a positive,  not  a 
negative,  union,  that  is  to  say,  a union  which  grows  out 
of  definite  convictions  held  in  common  and  definite  pur- 
poses shared.  Nothing  can  stand  or  satisfy  that  is  not 
built  on  the  truth.  And  the  central  truth  for  the  Chris- 
tian is  the  revelation  which  God  has  made  of  Himself  in 
our  Lord  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ.  To  the  Christian 


THE  FUTURE 


329 


Jesus  Christ  is  the  first  and  the  last,  the  center  of  all 
things.  Hence  the  forms  of  union  for  which  the  spirit  of 
unity  is  seeking  must  rest  upon  definite  convictions  con- 
cerning Him,  grow  out  of  real  experience  of  life  with 
Him,  and  utter  themselves  in  common  purposes  of  unsel- 
fish and  ministering  action  in  His  service.  No  other  prin- 
ciple of  union  can  avail  because  no  other  does  full  justice 
to  the  truth.  There  may  be  truth  in  other  principles,  but  if 
so  it  is  only  because  such  principles  are  partial  expressions 
of  the  truth  which  is  in  Christ  and  which  He  is.  The 
deepest  impulse  to  the  larger  union  for  which  the  Chris- 
tian spirit  is  seeking  is  the  necessity  of  such  a union  as 
the  condition  of  a further  experience  of  Christ  by  the 
Church  and  a fuller  expression  of  Christ  to  the  world. 

^ 2.  It  must  be  a union  which  is  the  expression  of 

freedom.  Where  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is,  there  is  liberty. 
The  Church  that  would  be  truly  Christian  must  increase, 
not  abridge,  the  freedom  and  power  of  its  members.  It 
is  because  all  our  existing  forms  of  organization,  whether 
denominational  or  cooperative,  either  contract  Christian 
freedom  or  provide  inadequately  for  its  exercise  that  the 
Christian  spirit  is  discontented  with  them.  The  fear 
which  is  often  expressed  that  new  measures  or  forms  of 
union  will  hamper  freedom  and  impose  restraint  is  an 
honorable  and  just  fear,  but  it  needs  to  be  brought  un- 
flinchingly to  bear  also  upon  all  existing  institutions.  Our 
denominational  organizations  can  not  be  exempted  from 
its  test.  Do  they  limit  Christian  fellowship?  Do  they 
exclude  any  whom  Christ  accepts?  Are  they  narrower 
than  “the  communion  of  the  saints,”  in  which  all  Chris- 
tians affirm  their  belief?  Is  there  truth  or  are  there  pro- 
portions and  relations  of  truth  beyond  their  formularies? 
If  so,  are  they  not  found  inadequate  before  the  legiti- 
mate Christian  demand  for  “perfect  liberty,”  the  freedom 
wherewith  Christ  would  make  us  free?  The  American 
colonies  found  more  freedom,  not  less,  by  uniting.  That 
experience  may  be  even  more  true  of  the  churches. 


33° 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


3.  It  should  be  an  inclusive,  not  an  exclusive,  union. 
It  must  recognize  and  make  room  for  the  richness  of  his- 
toric tradition  and  of  religious  experience  which  the  vari- 
ous groups  of  Christian  believers  can  bring.  The  whole 
must  be  as  great  and  rich  as  any  of  its  parts.  More  than 
this,  the  whole  must  be  greater  and  richer  than  any  of 
its  parts.  And  more  even  than  this,  the  whole  must  be 
more  than  all  its  parts.  The  body  is  more  than  the  mere 
mathematical  or  physical  total  of  its  members.  It  has  a 
life  which  animates  all  its  members  while  they  bring  their 
service  to  it.  It  is  this  fulness  of  life  and  power  of  the 
whole  and  complete  body  which  we  lack  today,  and  which 
the  movement  toward  unity  is  seeking.  We  must  aim, 
therefore,  at  comprehension,  not  at  omission  and  elision. 
It  is  an  old  saying  that  men  are  usually  right  in  what  they 
affirm  and  wrong  in  what  they  deny.  No  doubt,  it  is  a 
saying  of  limited  truthfulness,  since  every  affirmation  in- 
volves a denial.  But  it  is  a saying  of  substantial  truth- 
fulness, nevertheless.  Our  human  affirmations  are  often 
half-truths,  partial  apprehensions,  side  glimmers.  They 
are  not  the  truth,  but  only  part  of  it,  and  what  they  leave 
out  is  another  part  of  it.  The  full  truth  is  something  more 
than  the  total  of  what  we  affirm  and  of  what  those  affirm 
who  need  to  join  us  and  whom  we  need  to  join,  that  to- 
gether we  may  be  richer  than  we  were  apart,  and  together 
seek  for  the  truth  that  is  still  beyond  us  all.  Whoever 
holds  his  truth  in  Christ  is  needed  in  the  union  which  the 
Christian  spirit  has  ever  sought  after,  bringing  his  truth 
with  him. 

And  there  is  truth  in  Christ  which  all  whom  this  union 
would  unite  have  not  yet  apprehended  and  will  not  appre- 
hend until  they  “all  attain  unto  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and 
of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a fullgrown 
man,  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of 
Christ ; that  we  may  be  no  longer  children,  tossed  to  and 
fro  and  carried  about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine,  by  the 
sleight  of  men,  in  craftiness,  after  the  wiles  of  error;  but 


THE  FUTURE 


33i 


speaking  truth  in  love,  may  grow  up  in  all  things  into  him, 
who  is  the  head,  even  Christ;  from  whom  all  the  body 
fitly  framed  and  knit  together  through  that  which  every 
joint  supplieth,  according  to  the  working  in  due  measure 
of  each  several  part,  maketh  the  increase  of  the  body 
unto  the  building  up  of  itself  in  love.”  There  is  no  prin- 
ciple of  exclusion  or  impoverishment  recognized  here, 
but  an  ideal  of  common  wealth  won  by  common  life  and 
united  experience  and  service.  Let  every  company  of 
Christians  and  every  church  which  bears  Christ’s  name 
bring  in  whatever  it  has  and  prizes  of  doctrinal  view,  of 
ritual,  of  devotion,  of  principle  of  well-doing.  Let  it  hold 
it  fast ; only  let  it  share  it  in  the  Christian  spirit  with  all 
who  wish  to  share  it.  And  still  there  will  be  room  for 
new  discoveries  of  the  truth  and  grace  and  beauty  of  God 
in  Christ,  discoveries  which  will  only  then  have  been 
made  possible. 

4.  It  should  be  a union,  therefore,  which  makes  room 
within  the  central  organization  for  lesser  but  still  highly 
developed  unities  which  can  function,  within  the  sphere 
allotted  to  them,  with  the  same  freedom  and  responsibil- 
ity with  which  the  whole  functions  in  its  larger  sphere. 
It  cannot  be  too  often  or  too  clearly  shown  that  unity 
is  not  uniformity.  It  never  has  been ; it  is  not  now ; it 
will  not  be  in  the  Church  of  the  future.  Unity  of  spirit 
and  truth  actually  prevails  widely  today  among  Chris- 
tians. It  is  found  among  men  of  the  most  diverse  names 
and  associations.  Even  though  they  disavow  one  another, 
their  disavowal  is  vain ; for  anyone  who  looks  upon  them 
from  without  perceives  that  what  they  have  in  common 
is  vastly  more  than  that  which  divides  them.  But  this 
existing  unity  does  not  mean  uniformity.  And  if  a Chris- 
tian unity  already  exists  among  men  whose  religious  life 
expresses  itself  through  different  Christian  organizations, 
there  would  seem  to  be  no  reason  why  the  same  freedom 
and  diversity  may  not  mark  the  comprehensive  Church  of 
the  future.  Indeed,  it  may  well  prove  to  be  the  case  that 


332 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


in  the  larger  union  which  the  Christian  spirit  seeks  there 
will  not  only  be  room  for  all  the  varieties  of  forms  and 
views  which  are  now  possible  in  Christ,  but  that  provision 
may  be  made  for  expressing  these  varieties  in  ways  which 
do  not  involve  the  narrowing  and  limiting  effect  of  our 
present  divisions. 

We  must  never  forget  that  whatever  losses  may  have 
been  involved  in  the  past  divisions  of  the  Christian 
Church,  there  has  been  on  the  other  hand  a compensating 
and  enriching  gain.  As  we  look  back  over  history, 
whether  in  the  Church  or  in  the  State,  we  see  a develop- 
ment of  alternating  tendencies.  For  a period  the  move- 
ment toward  unity  prevails,  and  then  for  another  period 
the  movement  toward  freedom.  But  these  movements 
are  not  ultimately  exclusive.  Each  exists  for  the  other. 
The  periods  of  separation  and  of  divisive  liberty  have  had 
as  their  result  the  enlargement  of  the  contribution  that 
each  group  may  make  to  the  common  and  corporate  life. 
The  thirteen  colonies  brought  each  a distinctive  offering 
to  the  united  national  stock.  The  union  which  we  seek  will 
be  rich  and  essential  in  proportion  as  the  forces  and  insti- 
tutions which  will  compose  it  have  developed  to  the  ut- 
most the  possibilities  of  the  trusts  committed  to  them  and 
bring  these  to  the  common  store.  For  that  reason  the 
srongest  denominational  life  and  energy  is  to  be  rejoiced 
over,  if  only  it  conceives  itself  in  terms  not  of  exclusive 
privilege  but  of  common  responsibility.  Those  who  have 
experienced  most  will  have  most  to  give.  This  is  the  law 
of  life  and  power  throughout  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

5.  It  should  be  a union  which  is  based  upon  the  spirit 
of  Christian  unity  already  existing  and  which  grows  nat- 
urally out  of  it.  It  is  often  said  that  new  experiences  of 
Christian  unity  will  spring  from  the  effort  to  go  beyond 
our  present  divisions  and  to  provide  new  forms  of  union; 
but  it  is  equally  clear  that  we  shall  go  forward  only  as  we 
clearly  recognize  the  spirit  of  unity  already  here.  The 
breadth  and  power  of  this  existing  spirit  of  unity  must 


THE  FUTURE 


333 


be  acknowledged.  They  are  recognized  by  this  Commit- 
tee with  deep  gratitude  and  joy.  Our  own  experience  in 
working  together  is  unanswerable  evidence  to  us  of  the 
depth  and  reality  of  the  underlying  unity  which  now  pre- 
vails among  the  churches.  And  this  evidence  is  before 
everyone’s  eyes.  Let  there  be  a gathering  anywhere  of 
clergy  or  laymen  or  women  from  the  evangelical  churches 
to  consider  the  testimony  or  work  of  the  Church  in  the 
world  today,  and  no  one  unacquainted  with  those  who 
have  gathered  could  tell  to  which  body  of  Christians  each 
speaker  belonged.  The  body  of  common  Christian  doc- 
trine, of  common  modes  of  action,  of  common  Christian 
experience  and  devotion,  of  common  apologetic,  of  com- 
mon practical  application  of  Christianity  to  human  life 
throughout  the  world  today  is  so  great  that  it  is  perfectly 
true  to  say  that  in  spirit  we  are  one  now.  There  is  room, 
of  course,  for  a still  deeper  unity  of  spirit,  but  that  is 
not  our  most  pressing  lack.  Primary  among  our  duties 
is  the  duty  of  providing  adequate  forms  to  express  the 
unity  which  we  already  possess. 

In  this  attempt,  no  doubt,  we  shall  encounter  difficul- 
ties. Nothing  is  to  be  gained  by  ignoring  the  fact  that 
there  are  bodies  of  Christians  who  are  now  unwilling  to 
unite  with  other  Christians.  Some  extend  this  unwilling- 
ness further  than  others,  and  decline  practically  all  forms 
of  cooperative  action.  It  must  be  recognized,  also,  that 
some  Christians  who  hold  the  idea  of  union  define  the 
conditions  essential  to  it  in  such  a way  that  others  are 
unable  to  assent  to  them.  Yet  all  these  Christians  rec- 
ognize as  in  the  body  of  Christ  Christians  who  are  not 
members  of  their  own  communions.  Are  not  these 
two  attitudes  inconsistent  with  each  other?  Is  it  really  a 
tenable  position  to  regard  others  as  in  the  body  of  Christ 
and  yet  to  refuse  to  unite  with  them?  Can  it  be  right  to 
demand  as  necessary  to  Christian  union  more  than  is  nec- 
essary to  Christian  unity ? More  may  be  desirable,  no 
doubt.  Yet  even  the  present  lines  of  church  membership 


334 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


are  so  drawn  as  to  include  much  that  is  recognized  as  not 
fully  Christian.  If  it  be  true,  as  all  admit,  that  men  can 
be  in  Christ  and  yet  be  far  from  perfected,  it  is  equally 
true  that  men  can  be  in  a church  which  claims  to  have  all 
the  essential  marks  and  credentials  of  a church,  and  yet 
be  far  from  perfected.  Surely,  the  union  which  Chris- 
tians seek  ought  to  correspond  as  closely  as  possible  to 
the  fundamental  Christian  facts,  and  is  not  the  fundamen- 
tal Christian  fact  the  fact  of  individual  and  corporate  re- 
lationship to  Christ,  our  Lord  ? And  ought  not  those 
things  only  be  regarded  as  fundamental  and  essential  to 
union  which  are  fundamental  and  essential  to  Christian 
discipleship  and  to  that  life  in  Christ  which  all  are  pre- 
pared to  recognize  as  true?  Of  course  those  who  wish 
more  than  this  must  not  be  prohibited  from  it  in  a true 
and  comprehensive  Christian  union.  But  can  any  who 
have  this  be  rightfully  excluded? 

We  may  learn  a clear  lesson  here  from  the  family. 
Unity  prevails  there  far  more  fully  than  in  any  other  part 
of  our  social  experience.  The  unity  of  the  family  is  an 
indestructible  fact.  A father  cannot  unson  his  son,  nor  a 
brother  unbrother  his  brother.  Moreover,  the  family  is 
the  fundamental  human  institution,  to  which  Christianity 
has  given  a new  sanctity.  And  the  State  and  the  Church, 
the  other  two  great  institutions  in  the  divine  order  of 
human  society,  cohere  to  the  extent  that  they  are  able  to 
realize  the  kind  of  unity  which  exists  in  the  Christian 
family.  The  deepest  element  of  union  within  each  de- 
nomination is  the  measure  in  which  the  denomination  em- 
bodies the  family  principle,  recognizing  the  legitimacy 
of  differences  in  gifts  and  views  but  allowing  no  differ- 
ence to  break  the  bond  of  the  common  life.  Why  may 
we  not  work  far  more  boldly  and  extensively  with  this 
principle?  The  whole  Church  is  a family,  and  ought  to 
be  conceived  as  such.  We  should  refuse  to  recognize 
division  or  exclusiveness  as  anything  else  than  a vain  and 
impossible  denial  of  facts  that  cannot  be  altered  by  refus- 


THE  FUTURE 


335 


ing  to  recognize  them.  How  can  those  who  call  God 
Father  and  who  recognize  one  another’s  right  to  do  so 
escape  the  family  implications  and  obligations  of  this 
common  prayer? 

Such,  then,  are  some  of  the  characteristics  of  the  union 
which  is  to  be  sought.  It  must  be,  first,  a union  which  is 
positive  and  not  negative,  founded  in  loyalty  to  Christ 
and  in  God’s  revelation  in  Him.  Secondly,  it  must  be  a 
union  which  is  consistent  with  freedom,  a union  which 
conserves  the  truth  for  which  each  of  the  uniting  groups 
has  contended  in  the  past.  And  to  that  end  it  should  be, 
in  the  third  place,  an  inclusive,  not  an  exclusive  union, 
providing  for  the  variety  of  interpretation  and  of  experi- 
ence which  we  find  in  the  existing  churches.  It  must  then, 
in  the  fourth  place,  make  room  within  its  central  organi- 
zation for  lesser  but  still  highly  developed  unities,  which 
can  function  within  their  own  spheres  with  a large  degree 
of  freedom  and  responsibility.  And,  finally,  whatever 
union  we  are  to  reach  must  be  based  upon  the  spiritual 
unity  already  existing  and  must  grow  naturally  out  of  it. 

Such  being  the  nature  of  the  union  to  be  sought,  how 
is  it  to  be  brought  about? 

II.  Principles  Which  Define  the  Method  to  Be 
Followed 

i.  If  we  have  correctly  defined  the  character  of  the 
union  to  be  sought  it  is  clear,  in  the  first  place,  that  no 
attempt  to  solve  the  problem  by  approaching  it  solely  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  relations  betzveen  the  denomina- 
tions can  hope  to  be  successful.  There  is  a parallel  proc- 
ess of  importance  which  must  go  on  within  the  existing 
denominations.  They,  too,  must  learn  to  think  and  feel 
and  work  as  one,  and  to  that  end  they  must  provide  the 
appropriate  organs  through  which  this  growing  con- 
sciousness of  denominational  unity  may  find  expression 
in  effective  common  action.  In  many  cases  this  is  not  the 


336 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


situation  today.  Many  denominations  are  diffusely  and 
inefficiently  organized  for  their  own  work.  The  war  ex- 
perience showed  how  unprepared  some  of  them  were  for 
the  stress  of  a sudden  emergency.  For  both  missionary 
and  educational  work  some  churches  are  unprovided 
either  with  the  requisite  machinery,  or  with  adequate 
ideals  of  obligation  and  capacity,  or  with  both.  Others 
do  not  have  such  a central  agency  continuously  function- 
ing in  the  name  of  the  denomination  as  a whole  as  could 
readily  cooperate  with  other  denominations.  Weak  ele- 
ments like  these  could  only  form  weak  units  in  a larger 
union.  The  union  would  indeed  give  them  a great  deal 
that  they  lack,  but  it  would  give  them  more  if  they 
brought  more  as  their  contribution.  Since  the  whole  de- 
pends for  its  strength  on  the  strength  of  its  parts,  no 
union  composed  of  elements  which  are  themselves  inef- 
fective can  be  efficient. 

It  is  true  that  in  the  past  this  strengthening  of  denom- 
inational machinery  has  too  often  proved  an  increased 
obstacle  to  Christian  cooperation  and  fellowship.  It  has 
tended  to  make  the  group  more  satisfied  with  its  own  life 
and  its  own  achievement,  apart  from  the  life  of  the  rest. 
But  once  put  the  individual  denomination  in  its  place  as 
part  of  the  one  great  Church  of  Christ,  and  the  entire 
significance  of  the  movement  for  denominational  unity  is 
altered.  The  motive  becomes  no  longer  a seeking  of  its 
own  growth  but  the  growth  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 
Each  communion,  then,  makes  itself  strong  in  order  that 
it  may  do  effectively  that  part  of  the  whole  work  which 
may  be  assigned  to  it  to  do. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  the  union  to  be  attained  among 
the  denominations  must  take  its  departure  from  whatever 
cooperation  and  union  already  exist,  and  build  definitely 
on  this  foundation.  There  must,  of  course,  be  a will- 
ingness to  discard  any  part  of  our  present  machinery 
which  experience  shall  show  to  be  unnecessary.  But  we 
cannot  make  progress  by  ignoring  what  has  already  been 


THE  FUTURE 


337 


achieved.  We  must,  therefore,  strengthen  the  existing 
agencies  for  united  action  wherever  they  are  weak  and 
supply  them  where  they  are  lacking,  whether  in  the  com- 
munity or  in  the  Church  as  a whole. 

And  it  is  essential  to  simplify  and  unify  as  much  as 
possible  the  existing  agencies  of  cooperation.  We  do  not 
mean  that  there  is  not  room  for  the  richest  expression 
of  individual  temperaments  and  ideals  of  service  and 
duty.  Of  all  the  forces  in  the  world  Christianity  is  and 
should  be  the  most  affluent  in  such  varieties  of  personal 
and  group  action.  We  do  mean  that  the  standard  coop- 
erative activities,  the  normal  and  necessary  corporate 
combinations  of  Christian  endeavor,  might  wisely  be 
made  both  more  simple  and  more  unified.  At  the  present 
time  many  intelligent  Christian  people  are  greatly  con- 
fused. They  do  not  know  the  differences  and  the  relation- 
ships between  the  interdenominational  movements  that 
are  seeking  church  unity  by  various  roads.  They  do  not 
know  the  respective  spheres  of  work  of  various  existing 
cooperative  agencies.  In  some  cases  these  differences 
and  relationships  and  spheres  of  work  have  not  been  ade- 
quately defined.  In  other  cases  those  who  are  directly 
engaged  in  the  movements  and  agencies  concerned  may 
understand  them  quite  clearly,  while  the  Christian  public 
does  not. 

This  difficulty  is  largely  due  to  the  fact  that  the  coop- 
erative movement  has  been  so  largely  the  expression  of 
the  voluntary  effort  of  individuals  or  small  groups.  It 
has  not  as  yet  back  of  it  the  definite  and  sustained  support 
of  the  churches  themselves,  either  in  men  or  in  money. 
This  situation  must  be  changed.  Where  agencies  of  co- 
operation have  been  established  and  accepted  by  the 
churches,  as  is  the  case  of  many  of  those  which  we  have 
been  studying  in  the  present  report,  it  is  surely  desirable 
to  trust  to  them  as  much  activity  and  service  as  possible. 
To  set  up  such  agencies  and  not  to  commit  real  respon- 
sibility to  them,  to  authorize  them  to  operate  in  certain 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


fields  of  service  and  at  the  same  time  to  allow  the  sep- 
arate organizations  which  are  parties  to  the  cooperation 
to  continue  the  same  full  measure  of  action  which  they 
would  carry  on  if  there  were  no  agency  of  cooperation, 
is  simply  to  multiply  machinery  and  to  duplicate  motion 
without  increase  of  economy  or  efficiency.  We  ought  to 
discover  how  much  work  we  can  do  cooperatively  and 
then  do  it  cooperatively.  Our  cooperative  committees 
should  be  trusted  to  do  for  us,  or  rather  we  should  do 
through  them,  what  we  should  otherwise  have  to  do  alone, 
but  what  we  can  thus  save  ourselves  from  doing  alone. 
We  shall  make  long  progress  if  within  the  next  few 
years  we  actually  commit  enlarging  tasks  to  our  present 
cooperative  agencies,  and  if  these  agencies  warrant  our 
trust  by  doing  service  for  us  which  we  could  not  do 
separately. 

But  such  effective  responsibility  can  be  secured  only 
if  our  agencies  of  cooperative  action  are  made  frankly 
and  fairly  and  officially  representative.  This  principle 
involves  at  the  present  time  many  limitations  which  un- 
representative or  non-responsible  action  would  escape, 
but  it  is  the  only  method  of  sure  and  substantial  progress. 
It  is  true  that  it  is  difficult  in  many  movements  to  calcu- 
late a just  basis  of  representation  and  to  create  a truly 
representative  character  for  them.  It  is  even  more  diffi- 
cult to  go  forward  rapidly  or  to  seize  unforeseen  oppor- 
tunities when  the  action  taken  must  command  approval 
from  a wide  and  varied  and  conservative  constituency. 
These  difficulties  must  be  candidly  recognized  and  ac- 
cepted. They  are  the  unavoidable  conditions  of  advance. 
If  we  could  ignore  them  we  might  seem  to  be  building 
more  rapidly  for  a time,  but  should  inevitably  discover 
that  we  had  been  fatally  at  fault  in  neglecting  the  foun- 
dations of  the  structure. 

3.  Pending  the  consummation  of  the  larger  unity  which 
is  the  final  goal,  all  lesser  unities  should  be  effected  by  the 
way.  The  union  of  separate  families  within  a single  de- 


THE  FUTURE 


339 


nomination,  of  groups  of  closely  related  denominations, 
and  of  philanthropic  and  missionary  agencies  in  continu- 
ation committees  and  councils  is  all  clear  gain.  At  the 
present  time  there  are  many  such  projects  of  union  under 
consideration  by  cognate  or  affiliated  churches.  The  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  are  working  together  upon  plans  of  com- 
plete organic  union.  The  Presbyterian  and  Reformed 
Churches  have  before  them  various  plans,  some  of  organic 
ecclesiastical  union,  some  of  federal  union,  some  of  union 
of  their  missionary  agencies.  These  movements  are  only 
illustrative  of  others.  Some  who  are  opposed  to  schemes 
of  general  union  favor  these  unions  in  kindred  denomi- 
nations. Among  those  who  believe  in  the  ideal  of  the 
largest  union  two  views  are  found.  On  the  one  hand  are 
those  who  disapprove  these  partial  unions,  fearing  that 
they  will  satisfy  those  who  are  involved  in  them  and  so 
create  a stronger  denominational  barrier  to  wider  union. 
On  the  other  hand  are  those  who  favor  these  unions  as 
right  in  themselves,  and  as  preparing  the  way  for  the 
larger  end.  It  seems  to  us  that  the  latter  is  the  wise 
view.  Whatever  unites  men  more  corporately  and  more 
visibly  and  more  truly  in  Christ  appears  to  us  to  be  good 
and  right.  And  experience  seems  to  show  that  progress 
toward  larger  union  is  hindered  not  by  the  consumma- 
tion of  these  preliminary  unions  but  by  their  unconcluded 
discussion.  So  long  as  such  plans  are  under  discussion 
but  undetermined,  the  attention  of  the  denomination  is 
naturally  absorbed  in  them  and  the  view  prevails  that 
other  questions  must  await  their  decision.  Let  all  such 
unions  be  hastened  for  their  own  sake  and  for  the  sake 
of  the  larger  unity  still  to  be. 

4.  It  must  be  recognized  that  in  the  matter  of  church 
union  as  elsewhere  the  path  of  knowledge  leads  through 
action.  It  is^by  working  together  at  the  tasks _ which  we 
all  agree  are  set  us  by  Christ  that  we  shall  discover  and 
develop  that  inner  unity  of  spirit  that  will  make  possible 


34° 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


larger  changes  in  organization  and  polity.  Action  is  al- 
ways educative.  The  moment  Christian  men  set  out  to- 
gether for  the  accomplishment  of  any  great  Christian 
tasks  they  enter  upon  new  illuminations.  They  begin  to 
see  what  had  not  been  clear  before  and  new  apprehensions 
lead  to  new  purposes.  If  any  lesson  has  been  taught  us 
clearly  by  the  war  it  is  this.  We  need  to  apply  what  we 
have  learned  to  the  new  tasks  of  peace.  We  are  facing 
great  problems  that  are  manifestly  impossible  for  any  of 
us  alone  and  soluble  at  all  only  as  we  face  them  together. 
The  task  of  Christian  education  in  a day  when  our  pub- 
lic education  is  practically  divorced  from  definite  reli- 
gious content,  the  task  of  Christianizing  all  phases  of 
our  social  life,  the  task  of  fulfilling  our  missionary  re- 
sponsibility to  the  non-Christian  world  and  of  securing 
international  brotherhood — all  these  and  others  are  com- 
mon obligations  resting  clearly  on  us  all.  Definitely  to 
undertake  together  such  indivisible  tasks  is  the  obvious 
pathway  of  advance  toward  union. 

5.  In  the  meantime  certain  habits  of  mind  and  of  tem- 
per must  be  sedulously  cultivated — the  habit  of  thinking 
of  others’  interests  as  if  they  were  our  own,  of  trying  to 
enter  into  the  nature  of  their  experience  and  to  see  things 
as  they  see  them,  of  inculcating  in  those  whom  we  can  in- 
fluence this  catholic  and  sympathetic  spirit  and  of  making 
place  for  it  in  our  educational  program  and  in  our  reli- 
gious publications ; above  all,  of  complete  frankness  and 
confidence  in  our  dealing  with  one  another.  The  end  we 
seek  cannot  be  furthered  by  anything  calculated  or  politic 
or  reserved  or  managed.  It  can  be  furthered  only  by 
candor,  unselfishness,  sincerity,  openness,  and  absolute 
good  faith.  All  discussions  and  projects  and  arrange- 
ments, all  movements  and  associations,  must  rest  and  pro- 
ceed upon  perfect  honesty  and  clear  understanding.  There 
must  be  no  hidden  devices  or  secret  schemes,  no  smoke- 
screens under  which  agreements  are  stretched  beyond  the 
willing  purpose  of  those  who  entered  them,  with  the  re- 


THE  FUTURE 


341 


suit  that  men  find  themselves  committed  to  liabilities  of 
expense  or  project  which  they  had  not  accepted  but  from 
which  they  cannot  escape.  In  all  our  effort  we  must  ex- 
ercise full  good  faith  toward  one  another,  attributing  to 
others  the  same  honesty  of  motive  of  which  we  are  con- 
scious in  ourselves  and  illustrating  in  all  our  ecclesiastical, 
practical,  or  human  relations  that  higher  sense  of  honor 
and  charity  which  alone  becomes  the  disciples  of  Christ. 

To  this  end  we  should  seek  to  multiply  in  every  pos- 
sible way  our  points  of  contact  with  one  another,  not 
simply  as  individual  Christians,  but  as  organized  Chris- 
tian bodies.  The  increase  of  interdenominational  ac- 
quaintance and  friendship  and  of  the  oneness  of  motive, 
temper,  and  viewpoint  among  believers,  due  to  many  in- 
fluences, is  leading  us  onward  to  a unity  of  mind  and  of 
procedure  which  often  makes  the  maintenance  of  our 
divisions  difficult  or  even  anomalous.  We  should  trust 
more  fully  this  great  body  of  unified  life  and  method 
which  we  possess  in  common.  We  should  provide  at 
once  for  fuller  mutual  conference  as  to  our  denomina- 
tional plans  and  programs.  We  should  all  be  able  to 
plan  more  efficiently  and  sensibly  in  consequence.  De- 
nominational secretiveness  and  the  separatism  and  isola- 
tion of  denominational  policy  are  an  injury  to  the  body 
which  falls  into  such  courses  and  to  the  whole  body 
of  Christians,  who  should  act  together  in  full  mutual 
confidence  and  with  the  power  of  one  comprehensive  plan 
of  action.  To  do  so  would  abridge  no  liberties  and  it 
would  avoid  wastes  and  duplications  and  immensely  in- 
crease the  power  of  the  impact  of  Christianity  upon 
the  world. 

To  sum  up,  then,  the  method  of  our  approach  to  the 
problem  of  union : We  should  take  our  departure  from 
the  union  which  already  exists  and  with  that  in  view 
should  strengthen  the  existing  agencies  for  united  action, 
whether  denominational  or  interdenominational,  so  that 
they  may  become  fully  unified,  representative,  and  re- 


342 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


sponsible.  While  looking  for  the  consummation  of  the 
completer  union  we  desire,  we  should  welcome  and  pro- 
mote the  effecting  of  all  lesser  unions  by  the  way.  We 
should  recognize  that  the  way  to  fuller  union  is  through 
common  action  on  behalf  of  the  ends  upon  which  we  now 
agree  and  in  the  spirit  of  the  unity  we  now  possess.  In 
all  our  dealings  with  one  another  as  individuals  and  as 
Christian  communions  we  should  cultivate  frankness, 
sympathy,  and  mutual  acquaintance,  sharing  with  each 
other  our  plans  and  programs,  and  to  that  end  should 
multiply  our  points  of  contact,  so  that  misunderstanding 
may  be  avoided  and  that  common  consciousness  be  cre- 
ated which  shall  prove  the  parent  of  still  closer  union 
in  the  future. 

III.  Consequences  for  the  Future 

If  what  we  have  said  above  be  true,  three  things  at 
least  are  necessary  in  order  to  make  progress  toward  our 
goal.  We  must  see  clearly  what  needs  to  be  done;  we 
must  provide  the  agencies  for  doing  it;  we  must  inspire 
the  will  to  use  these  agencies  with  a whole-heartedness 
and  enthusiasm  which  will  guarantee  success. 

i.  First  and  most  important  as  an  influence  in  pro- 
moting union  will  be  a clear  vision  of  the  goal  for  the 
sake  of  which  union  is  sought.  A comprehensive  under- 
standing of  the  world’s  need  in  the  light  of  the  resources 
of  the  Church  as  a whole  is  thus  the  precondition  of 
any  adequate  program  of  united  endeavor.  This  involves, 
of  course,  sympathetic  study.  And  the  results  of  such 
study  and  survey  must  be  made  part  of  the  common  con- 
sciousness of  the  Church  as  a whole.  Such  a result  can- 
not be  attained  by  the  efforts  of  a limited  group  of  men, 
however  well  trained  and  devoted.  All  Christians  must 
form  the  habit  of  systematic  study  of  all  the  problems  in- 
volved in  this  whole  complicated  matter  of  the  union  of  the 
life  and  power  and  experience  of  the  Christian  Church. 
Knowledge  and  love  are  the  remedy  for  ignorance  and 


THE  FUTURE 


343 


misunderstanding,  and  there  are  few  more  serious  ob- 
stacles in  our  pathway  toward  fuller  unity  than  the  mis- 
conceptions which  prevail  among  Christians  as  to  the 
ideals,  experience,  and  plans  of  their  fellow-Chris- 
tians.  This  lack  of  understanding  must  be  removed  and 
it  can  be  removed  only  by  open-minded  study  of  the  facts 
and  by  the  contacts  of  Christian  fellowship.  How  this 
is  to  be  done  in  detail  is  not  for  us  to  say.  It  cannot,  how- 
ever, be  too  strongly  insisted  that  the  ideal  of  a common 
facing  of  the  world  task  of  the  Church,  which  the  Inter- 
church World  Movement  proposed,  should  not  be  aban- 
doned, but  be  carried  forward  to  a success  that  has  not 
yet  been  attained. 

2.  Although  organization  alone  cannot  accomplish  what 
is  needed,  it  has  its  necessary  place.  Four  kinds  of 
agencies  are  now  at  the  disposal  of  the  Church,  each 
of  which  has  an  indispensable  part  to  play,  in  moving 
toward  the  goal  of  unity — the  denomination,  the  interde- 
nominational agency,  the  affiliated  organizations  of  an 
undenominational  character,  and  the  local  church.  That 
each  may  function  to  its  fullest  effectiveness  the  follow- 
ing steps  would  seem  desirable. 

Within  each  denomination  the  unifying  agencies  now 
in  existence  should  be  strengthened,  and  where  they  do 
not  exist  should  be  supplied,  so  that  there  can  be  some 
body  which  has  authority  to  cooperate  with  similar  bodies 
in  other  churches  in  such  common  utterances  and  action 
as  all  agree  to  be  necessary.  The  interdenominational 
cooperation  which  now  exists  as  a fact  in  various  agencies 
should  be  made  explicit,  and  adopted  by  each  denomina- 
tion as  a definite  and  fully  recognized  part  of  the  denom- 
ination’s program.  Between  the  existing  interdenomina- 
tional organizations  there  should  be  conference  as  to 
their  respective  spheres  and  responsibilities,  with  a view 
to  building  up  a single  responsible  federal  council,  or 
other  central  agency,  through  which  the  different  inter- 
ests of  the  churches  should  be  cleared.  This  council 


344 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


should  consist  of  official  representatives  of  the  different 
churches,  definitely  chosen  for  the  purpose,  and  in  a 
position  to  give  to  the  work  all  the  time  and  thought 
that  may  be  needed.  Their  relation  to  the  central  authori- 
ties of  their  respective  churches  should  be  like  that  of 
the  liaison  officers  in  the  army,  whose  function  it  was  to 
interpret  the  cooperating  bodies  to  one  another  and  to 
secure  unity  of  plan  and  procedure.  The  expenses  of  this 
central  council  should  be  borne  by  the  cooperating 
agencies.  It  should  represent  the  churches  on  all  mat- 
ters of  common  interest,  except  those  provided  for  by 
such  specialized  agencies  as  the  Home  Missions  Coun- 
cil, the  Foreign  Missions  Conference,  the  Council  of 
Church  Boards  of  Education,  the  Sunday  School  Coun- 
cil, and  others  which  are  charged  with  special  responsi- 
bility in  particular  spheres.  These  should  be  definitely 
related  to  the  central  council,  should  have  representation 
upon  it,  and  be  recognized  by  it  as  acting  for  the  churches 
in  the  field  assigned.  For  the  territory  not  covered  by 
these  agencies,  but  now  occupied  by  the  commissions  of 
the  Federal  Council,  provision  should  be  made  by  com- 
missions similar  to  those  now  in  existence,  but  having 
more  official  and  representative  character,  consisting  of 
members  appointed  for  the  purpose  by  the  cooperating 
bodies  and  financed  by  them. 

While  such  a central  organization  works  from  the 
center  of  the  movement  toward  unity,  and  is  the  agent 
through  which  the  united'  purpose  of  the  churches 
would  find  expression  as  far  as  developed,  it  would 
not  necessarily  cover  the  whole  field.  There  would  re- 
main a territory  to  be  occupied  by  voluntary  agencies, 
closely  related  in  sympathy  to  the  central  body,  and 
sharing  in  its  counsels  from  time  to  time,  but  retaining 
a freedom  in  experiment  not  possible  to  it.  Most  im- 
portant of  these  would  be  the  Young  Men’s  and  the 
Young  Women’s  Christian  Associations.  Through 
these  agencies  new  experiments  are  continually  being 


THE  FUTURE 


345 


tried,  and  new  experience  gained  which  in  time  may 
affect  the  policy  of  the  central  body.  Their  program 
and  that  of  the  interdenominational  agencies  should  be 
jointly  agreed  upon,  to  avoid  duplication  and  rivalry. 

And  while  these  movements  are  proceeding  in  the 
larger  field  of  the  church  life  of  the  country  as  a whole 
a parallel  development  must  be  taking  place  in  the  local 
communities.  When  all  is  said  and  done  it  will  inevitably 
be  found  that  we  cannot  build  a better  structure  than  we 
have  laid  the  foundation  for  in  the  local  church.  Unless 
the  problem  of  unity  is  being  solved  there,  through  such 
movements  as  those  represented  by  the  community  church 
in  the  small  villages  and  the  federation  of  churches  in 
the  cities,  it  is  not  likely  to  be  solved  satisfactorily  any- 
where. Cooperation  and  union  between  denominations 
can  never  become  really  vital  except  as  they  grow  nat- 
urally out  of  a spirit  of  unity  which  is  created  in  the 
church  home  where  men  and  women  are  being  trained  in 
their  understanding  of  the  meaning  of  the  Christian  life 
and  the  nature  of  the  Church. 

Less  easy  to  define  would  be  the  relation  of  the  feder- 
ation movement  to  the  proposal  for  organic  union  in  the 
narrower  sense.  In  view  of  differing  attitudes  toward  the 
latter,  the  relation  would  have  to  remain  informal  and 
unofficial.  Complete  organic  unity  would  remain  the  aspi- 
ration of  those  whose  eyes  were  fixed  on  the  distant  goal. 
Federal  union  would  form  the  means  through  which  the 
goal  may  be  ultimately  realized,  if  the  contacts  and  the 
fellowship  thus  developed  make  organic  union  seem  desir- 
able and  practicable.  In  the  meantime  both  those  who 
seek  organic  union  and  those  who  do  not  believe  it  wise 
can  meet  in  entire  good  faith  in  such  an  organization  as 
the  Federal  Council,  existing  for  the  one  purpose  of 
expressing  the  degree  of  unity  to  which  we  have  already 
attained.  Such  membership  provides  the  opportunity  for 
those  increasing  contacts  through  which  the  spiritual  unity 
of  believers  can  be  revealed  and  enlarged. 


346 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


3.  For  this  expanding  program  of  unity,  a common 
consciousness  must  be  developed  on  the  part  of  the  rank 
and  file  of  Christians.  This  would  involve  more  adequate 
educational  agencies  for  carrying  the  spirit  and  the  mes- 
sage of  unity  into  all  the  churches.  Such  a program 
of  education  it  is  certainly  not  for  us  to  outline  in  formal 
detail,  but  it  would  seem  to  us  to  include  such  features 
as  the  following : 

a.  A joint  program  of  study  of  the  principles  and 
practice  of  church  unity  similar  to  that  carried  on  by  the 
Committee  on  the  War  and  the  Religious  Outlook,  but 
on  a larger  and  more  representative  scale. 

b.  An  organ,  perhaps  similar  to  the  International  Re- 
view of  Missions  but  covering  the  whole  sphere  of  coop- 
erative work,  through  which  the  results  of  this  study  and 
the  facts  concerning  interdenominational  movements 
could  be  made  known  to  the  whole  Church. 

c.  Provision  for  the  treatment  of  church  cooperation 
and  unity  in  the  educational  program  of  colleges  and 
seminaries,  and  in  various  conferences  of  Christians  held 
from  time  to  time,  especially  the  student  conferences. 

d.  A deeper  spirit  of  consecration,  due  to  the  facing 
of  the  Church’s  whole  task  in  all  its  length  and  breadth. 
As  the  war  through  its  appeal  to  definite  consecration 
to  a specific  task  called  forth  reserves  of  unselfishness 
and  self-sacrifice  hitherto  unsuspected,  so  in  the  world’s 
need,  when  clearly  apprehended,  there  is  a dynamic  which 
will  supply  the  appeal  we  need  for  the  united  effort  of  a 
united  Church.  And  out  of  our  experience  of  doing  the 
will  of  Christ  we  shall  find  our  way  to  the  answer  to  His 
prayer  for  the  Church. 

But  we  must  be  ready  to  pay  the  price  of  unity.  Every 
good  is  costly.  The  redemption  of  the  world  cost  the  life 
of  the  Redeemer.  The  foundation  of  the  Church  was 
laid  in  toil  and  pain,  in  the  life  and  death  of  prophets, 
saints,  apostles,  martyrs.  Every  step  forward  in  the 


THE  FUTURE 


347 


achievement  of  the  divine  will  for  man  has  had  to  be 
paid  for  with  a great  price.  Each  of  the  great  religious 
movements  so  dear  to  us,  and  each  of  the  denominational 
traditions  which  we  cherish,  cost  more  to  begin  than  it 
costs  the  present  generation  to  maintain.  The  next 
advance  step  will  perhaps  cost  even  more  heavily.  The 
mistakes  which  are  likely  to  be  made  will  be  expensive 
and  the  successes  will  not  be  less  so.  Individuals  must 
be  ready  to  enter  into  larger  experiences  and  to  suffer 
the  wrenches  and  breakups  necessary  to  make  room  for 
richer  relationships  and  fuller  life.  Prejudices  which 
have  passed  themselves  off  as  principles  must  yield 
to  principles  which  are  true.  Denominations  must  pre- 
pare themselves  for  such  a fulfilment  of  their  mission 
as  came  to  John  the  Baptist.  Their  names  are  not  found 
in  the  New  Testament.  They  have  no  claim  to  per- 
petuity. The  New  Testament  Church  was  described  by 
none  of  our  adjectives,  neither  Catholic,  Roman,  Protes- 
tant, Baptist,  Methodist,  Lutheran,  Presbyterian,  nor 
Episcopalian.  We  must  be  ready,  when  the  time  comes, 
to  yield  our  adjectives  for  the  sake  of  the  one  substantial 
Church  which  is  not  many  but  one. 

If  we  are  ready  to  take  this  attitude  we  may  be  sure 
of  the  result.  This  is  the  final  conclusion  to  which  we 
have  been  led  by  our  study.  At  every  stage  of  it  we  have 
been  conscious  of  having  been  in  touch  with  a great 
living  movement  which  nothing  can  stop.  If  anything 
could  end  it,  the  weaknesses  and  errors  and  failings  of 
men  would  have  ended  it  long  ago.  They  would  end 
it  today.  But  it  is  a movement  whose  origin  guarantees 
its  ultimate  success.  Our  Lord  prayed  that  all  Christians 
might  be  one,  in  the  deepest  and  most  vital  unity  of 
which  we  can  conceive.  That  for  which  our  Lord  prayed 
cannot  fail. 


APPENDIX  I 


MOVEMENTS  TOWARD  UNION  IN  OTHER 
COUNTRIES 

The  desire  for  church  union  and  attempts  to  secure 
it  are  more  pronounced  than  ever  not  only  in  the  United 
States  but  also  in  practically  all  parts  of  the  world. 
Some  of  the  movements  abroad  are  associated  with  sim- 
ilar ones  in  our  own  country,  and  in  many  other  cases 
afford  at  least  a close  parallel.  They  need,  therefore, 
to  be  considered  in  any  account  of  progress  toward  union 
in  the  United  States. 

We  may  take  as  a date  for  beginning  the  present  ac- 
count the  year  1886,  when  the  House  of  Bishops  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States  made 
a declaration  of  four  general  articles  as  “a  sufficient 
statement  of  the  Christian  faith.”  In  the  following  year 
this  “Quadrilateral”  was  adopted  with  some  minor 
changes  by  the  Lambeth  Conference  of  Anglican  Bishops. 
As  modified,  it  reads  as  follows: 

“1.  The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments as  ‘containing  all  things  necessary  to  salvation,’ 
and  as  being  the  rule  and  ultimate  standard  of  faith.  2. 
The  Apostles’  Creed  as  the  baptismal  Symbol,  and  the 
Nicene  Creed  as  the  sufficient  statement  of  the  Christian 
faith.  3.  The  two  Sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  Him- 
self— Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord — ministered 
with  unfailing  use  of  Christ’s  words  of  institution  and  of 
the  elements  ordained  by  Him.  4.  The  Historic  Episco- 
pate, locally  adapted  in  the  methods  of  its  administration 
to  the  varying  needs  of  the  nations  and  peoples  called 
of  God  into  the  Unity»of  His  Church.” 

During  the  following  decade  this  Quadrilateral  occa- 


349 


350 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


sioned  much  discussion,  which,  however,  gradually  sub- 
sided without  having  led  to  any  practical  steps  for  re- 
union. Yet  its  influence  has  not  been  lost  in  subsequent 
conferences  and  efforts  for  church  unity.  Succeeding 
Lambeth  Conferences  have  adopted  general  declarations 
urging  efforts  and  prayer  for  union,  notably  that  of  the 
Lambeth  Conference  in  the  year  1908  inviting  members 
of  different  communions  to  hold  conferences  for  the 
mutual  consideration  of  their  relations  and  the  cause  of 
reunion.  In  this  utterance  these  words  occur,  which  have 
been  caught  up  and  often  repeated  as  a rallying  call: 
“We  seek  not  compromise  but  comprehension,  not  uni- 
formity but  unity.”  In  the  following  year  there  came 
from  the  United  States  the  call  for  the  World  Confer- 
ence on  Faith  and  Order,  the  development  of  which  has 
been  discussed  elsewhere  in  this  volume. 

The  National  Council  of  the  Evangelical  Free  Churches 
in  England  has  for  twenty-five  years  served  to  facilitate 
fraternal  intercourse  and  cooperation  among  the  Free 
Churches.  It  has  brought  church  leaders  together  in  a 
most  useful  way  but  in  a non-representative  capacity. 
It  seems  to  be  agreed,  therefore,  that  while  it  has  played 
a large  part  in  stimulating  and  inspiring  the  movement, 
its  present  organization  is  not  such  as  to  be  adequate  for 
the  future.  The  possibility  of  Free  Church  Union  has 
therefore  been  proposed,  and  an  official  deputation  was 
appointed  by  the  Free  Church  Council  three  or  four  years 
ago  to  hold  conferences  with  accredited  representatives 
of  the  churches  on  the  subject.  A basis  for  federal  union 
was  put  forth  which  has  now  been  adopted  by  most  of 
the  leading  evangelical  denominations.  It  is  known  as 
the  Federal  Council  of  the  Evangelical  Free  Churches 
of  England.  The  first  meetings  have  already  been  held. 

The  movement  for  the  reunion  of  the  Free  Churches 
and  the  Church  of  England  is  growing  in  influence.  A 
joint  committee  of  Anglicans  and  Nonconformists  has 
held  several  unofficial  conferences.  In  the  Second  In- 


APPENDIX  I 


35i 


terim  Report  of  the  committee1  discussing  matters  of 
faith  and  order,  there  was,  on  the  one  hand,  a recognition 
of  Nonconformist  communions  as  churches  by  the  An- 
glican members,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  a statement  by 
the  Nonconformist  members  that  in  the  united  Church 
there  would  be  a place  for  an  episcopacy  if  it  took  a con- 
stitutional form.  It  was  agreed  that  acceptance  of  the 
fact  of  the  episcopacy  and  not  any  theory  as  to  its  char- 
acter was  all  that  should  be  required. 

What  promises  to  be  a landmark  in  the  movement  to- 
ward organic  union  not  only  in  England  but  elsewhere 
was  the  recent  pronouncement  of  the  Lambeth  Confer- 
ence (August,  1920)  on  the  subject  of  reunion.’  It 
manifests  a more  generous  appreciation  of  the  Free 
Church  point  of  view  than  any  former  Lambeth  state- 
ment. It  recognizes  all  baptized  Christians  as  members 
of  the  Church  universal,  saying  that  “the  one  body  needs 
not  to  be  made,  nor  to  be  remade,  but  to  become  organic 
and  visible.”  The  repudiation  of  any  past  ministry  or 
the  absorption  of  any  communion  is  disavowed.  The 
plea  for  the  episcopate  is  put  forward  in  a conciliatory 
way,  urging  that  it  is  the  method  for  giving  the  authority 
of  the  whole  Church  to  the  ministry  and  that  “the  office 
of  a bishop  should  be  everywhere  exercised  in  a repre- 
sentative and  constitutional  manner.”  It  is  suggested 
that  in  order  to  secure  a general  acceptance  of  one  min- 
istry, Anglican  bishops  and  clergy  would  probably  “will- 
ingly accept  a form  of  commission  or  recognition”  from 
the  authorities  of  other  churches,  and  it  is  hoped  “that 
the  same  motive  would  lead  ministers  who  have  not  re- 
ceived it  to  accept  a commission  through  episcopal  ordi- 
nation.” If  it  could  be  made  entirely  clear  that  this  in- 
volves only  extension  of  the  existing  ministry  and  not 

’For  this  report  and  other  significant  pronouncements  on  the 
subject  of  reunion,  see  “Approaches  towards  Christian  Unity,” 
edited  by  Newman  Smyth  and  Williston  Walker,  New  Haven, 
igig. 

’The  statement  is  printed  as  a whole  as  Appendix  III. 


352 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


reordination,  a long  step  ahead  may  be  in  sight.  The 
vexed  question  of  state-establishment  in  England  is  not 
raised. 

The  terms  of  the  new  Lambeth  proposal  are  expressed 
as  follows : “The  Holy  Scriptures,  as  the  record  of  God’s 
revelation  of  himself  to  man,  and  as  being  the  rule  and 
ultimate  standard  of  faith;  and  the  creed  commonly 
called  Nicene,  as  the  sufficient  statement  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  and  either  it  or  the  Apostles’  creed  as  the  bap- 
tismal confession  of  belief ; the  divinely  instituted  sacra- 
ments of  baptism  and  the  holy  communion,  as  expressing 
for  all  the  corporate  life  of  the  whole  fellowship  in  and 
with  Christ ; a ministry  acknowledged  by  every  part  of 
the  Church  as  possessing  not  only  the  inward  call  of  the 
Spirit  but  also  the  commission  of  Christ  and  the  authority 
of  the  whole  body.” 

One  point  deserving  special  attention  in  connection 
with  the  Lambeth  Conference  is  the  resolution  urging 
the  churches  to  join  in  councils  for  united  effort  along 
various  lines  of  service : 

“The  Conference  recommends  that,  wherever  it  has 
not  already  been  done,  councils  representing  all  Chris- 
tian communions  should  be  formed  within  such  areas  as 
may  be  deemed  most  convenient,  as  centers  of  united 
effort  to  promote  the  physical,  moral,  and  social  welfare 
of  the  people,  and  the  extension  of  the  rule  of  Christ 
among  all  nations  and  over  every  region  of  human  life.” 

The  action  of  the  Lambeth  Conference  is,  of  course, 
merely  an  expression  of  opinion  and  has  no  binding 
authority.  But  that  such  opinion  should  have  been  ex- 
pressed almost  unanimously  by  the  archbishops  and 
bishops  of  the  whole  Anglican  Church  can  hardly  help 
having  far-reaching  effects. 

In  Canada  a vigorous  movement  for  the  organic  union 
of  the  Presbyterian,  the  Methodist,  and  the  Congrega- 
tional Churches  has  been  in  progress  since  1902.  In 
1909-1910,  after  preliminary  conferences  in  previous 


APPENDIX  I 


353 


years,  the  approval  of  the  three  churches  was  sought  for 
a basis  of  union  for  “The  United  Church  of  Canada.” 
In  all  three  churches  a substantial  majority  of  the 
members  voted  in  the  affirmative,  but  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  in  which  the  majority  was  smallest  (being  about 
sixty-five  per  cent),  felt  that  it  was  wiser  to  wait  for  the 
consummation  of  the  union  till  sentiment  for  it  might 
become  more  widespread.  Here  the  matter  now  stands 
awaiting  further  action  by  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
Meanwhile  interdenominational  cooperation,  both  in  such 
national  agencies  as  the  Social  Service  Council  and 
in  local  union  or  federated  churches,  is  increasing. 

In  Australia  in  1906-1907  committees  on  union  of  An- 
glicans and  Presbyterians  formulated  a series  of  resolu- 
tions looking  toward  union,  by  providing  for  the  recip- 
rocal conferring  upon  the  clergy  of  the  two  bodies  “all 
the  rights  and  privileges  necessary  for  the  exercise  of 
their  office  in  the  united  Church.”  This  attempt  to  find 
a solution  of  the  problem  of  orders  has  not,  however, 
resulted  in  any  definite  step. 

A more  promising  movement  in  Australia  today  seems 
to  be  for  the  organic  union  of  the  Methodist,  Presby- 
terian, and  Congregational  Churches.  A basis  of  doctrine 
and  polity  was  agreed  upon  at  a conference  in  Septem- 
ber, 1918,  then  submitted  to  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  the  Congregational  Union  of 
Australia  and  New  Zealand,  and  the  Methodist  General 
Conference  of  Australia,  and  approved  (with  some  res- 
ervations and  suggested  amendments)  by  each  of  these 
bodies  for  submission  to  the  local  congregations.  The 
voting  thus  far  by  the  smaller  units — state  assemblies, 
presbyteries,  quarterly  meetings,  etc.  — of  the  three 
churches  reveals  large  majorities,  except  in  the  case  of 
the  Presbyterians  where  the  majorities  have  usually 
been  by  small  margins.  The  opposing  Presbyterians  in 
certain  areas,  however,  are  promoting  the  idea  of  an 
effective  federation  in  the  place  of  present  organic  union. 


354 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Besides  these  movements  discussed  in  the  foregoing 
paragraphs,  various  consolidations  of  ecclesiastical  bodies 
of  the  same  denominational  family  have  been  undertaken, 
and  in  some  instances  accomplished,  in  Canada,  Scotland, 
and  Australasia,  as  well  as  in  mission  fields.  The  union 
of  the  several  branches  of  Methodism  in  Canada ; of  the 
Free  Christian  Baptists,  the  Free  Baptists,  and  the  Bap- 
tists in  Canada;  of  the  Methodists  and  the  Wesleyans  in 
New  Zealand;  and  of  the  Free  and  the  United  Presby- 
terian Churches  in  Scotland  are  cases  in  point.  Some  of 
the  unions  on  the  mission  field  have  been  mentioned  in 
another  chapter.3 

Efforts  for  the  recognition  of  Anglican  orders  by  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  took  place  between  1890  and 
1896.  Lord  Halifax,  the  president  of  the  English  Church 
Union  Society,  after  obtaining  encouraging  responses 
from  Abbe  Portal  and  a few  other  Catholic  scholars 
sought  to  have  the  question  of  the  validity  of  Anglican 
orders  submitted  to  the  Pope.  They  failed  to  obtain, 
however,  any  official  advances  from  the  Archbishops  of 
England  towards  the  Vatican,  but  they  succeeded  in  lay- 
ing the  matter  before  the  Pope  for  consideration.  He  ap- 
pointed a Commission  and  directed  them  to  make  a thor- 
ough inquiry  into  all  the  matters  involved.  As  a result 
of  their  careful  investigation,  Leo  XIII  issued  an  Apos- 
tolic Letter  ( Apostolicae  Curae ) on  September  13,  1896, 
in  which  he  declared  that  “ordinations  carried  out  ac- 
cording to  the  Anglican  rite  have  been  and  are  absolutely 
null  and  utterly  void.” 

While  of  recent  years  many  things  have  conspired  to 
promote  a better  understanding  and  mutual  good  will 
between  Protestants  and  Catholics,  no  further  approaches 
toward  reunion  have  been  made,  except  in  the  case  of 
the  Commission  on  Faith  and  Order,  whose  proposal  for 
an  ecumenical  conference  was  declined  by  the  Pope. 


3See  pp.  310-314. 


APPENDIX  II 


PLAN  OF  THE  AMERICAN  COUNCIL  ON 
ORGANIC  UNION 

The  following  is  the  plan  of  union  adopted  by  the 
American  Council  on  Organic  Union  of  the  Churches 
of  Christ,  meeting  in  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  February  3-6, 
1920: 

Preamble  : 

Whereas:  We  desire  to  share,  as  a common  heritage, 
the  faith  of  the  Christian  Church,  which  has,  from  time 
to  time,  found  expression  in  great  historic  statements ; 
and 

Whereas:  We  all  share  belief  in  God  our  Father;  in 
Jesus  Christ,  His  only  Son,  our  Saviour;  in  the  Holy 
Spirit,  our  Guide  and  Comforter;  in  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church,  through  which  God’s  eternal  purpose  of  salva- 
tion is  to  be  proclaimed  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  to  be 
realized  on  earth;  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  as  containing  God’s  revealed  will,  and  in  the 
life  eternal;  and 

Whereas:  Having  the  same  spirit  and  owning  the  same 
Lord,  we  none  the  less  recognize  diversity  of  gifts  and 
ministrations  for  whose  exercise  due  freedom  must  al- 
ways be  afforded  in  forms  of  worship  and  in  modes  of 
operation : 

Plan  : 

Now,  we  the  churches  hereto  assenting  as  hereinafter 
provided  in  Article  VI  do  hereby  agree  to  associate  our- 
selves in  a visible  body  to  be  known  as  the  “United 
Churches  of  Christ  in  America,”  for  the  furtherance  of 

355 


356 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


the  redemptive  work  of  Christ  in  the  world.  This  body 
shall  exercise  in  behalf  of  the  constituent  churches  the 
functions  delegated  to  it  by  this  instrument,  or  by  subse- 
quent action  of  the  constituent  churches,  which  shall  re- 
tain the  full  freedom  at  present  enjoyed  by  them  in  all 
matters  not  so  delegated. 

Accordingly,  the  churches  hereto  assenting  and  here- 
after thus  associated  in  such  visible  body  do  mutually 
covenant  and  agree  as  follows: 

I.  Autonomy  in  Purely  Denominational  Affairs 

In  the  interest  of  the  freedom  of  each  and  of  the  coop- 
eration of  all,  each  constituent  church  reserves  the  right 
to  retain  its  creedal  statements,  its  form  of  government 
in  the  conduct  of  its  own  affairs,  and  its  particular  mode 
of  worship. 

In  taking  this  step,  we  look  forward  with  confident 
hope  to  that  complete  unity  toward  which  we  believe  the 
Spirit  of  God  is  leading  us.  Once  we  shall  have  coop- 
erated wholeheartedly,  in  such  visible  body,  in  the  holy 
activities  of  the  work  of  the  Church,  we  are  persuaded 
that  our  differences  will  be  minimized  and  our  union 
become  more  vital  and  effectual. 

II.  The  Council  (how  constituted) 

The  United  Churches  of  Christ  in  America  shall  act 
through  a Council  and  through  such  Executive  and  Judi- 
cial Commissions,  or  Administrative  Boards,  working 
ad  interim,  as  such  Council  may  from  time  to  time  ap- 
point and  ordain. 

The  Council  shall  convene  as  provided  for  in  Article 
VI  and  every  second  year  thereafter.  It  may  also  be 
convened  at  any  time  in  such  manner  as  its  own  rules 
may  prescribe.  The  Council  shall  be  a representative 
body. 

Each  constituent  church  shall  be  entitled  to  represen- 


APPENDIX  II  357 

tation  therein  by  an  equal  number  of  ministers  and  of 
lay  members. 

The  basis  of  representation  shall  be : two  ministers  and 
two  lay  members  for  the  first  one  hundred  thousand  or 
fraction  thereof  of  its  communicants;  and  two  ministers 
and  two  lay  members  for  each  additional  one  hundred 
thousand  or  major  fraction  thereof. 

III.  The  Council  (its  working) 

The  Council  shall  adopt  and  promulgate  its  own  by- 
laws and  rules  of  procedure  and  order.  It  shall  define 
the  functions  of  its  own  officers,  prescribe  the  mode  of 
their  selection  and  their  compensation,  if  any.  It  shall 
provide  for  its  budget  of  expense  by  equitable  apportion- 
ment of  the  same  among  the  constituent  churches  through 
their  supreme  governing  or  advisory  bodies. 

IV.  Relation  of  Council  and  Constituent  Churches 

The  supreme  governing  or  advisory  bodies  of  the  con- 
stituent churches  shall  effectuate  the  decisions  of  the 
Council  by  general  or  specific  deliverance  or  other  man- 
date whenever  it  may  be  required  by  the  law  of  a partic- 
ular state,  or  the  charter  of  a particular  board,  or  other 
ecclesiastical  corporation ; but,  except  as  limited  by  this 
plan,  shall  continue  the  exercise  of  their  several  powers 
and  functions  as  the  same  exist  under  the  denominational 
constitution. 

The  Council  shall  give  full  faith  and  credit  to  the 
authenticated  acts  and  records  of  the  several  governing 
or  advisory  bodies  of  the  constituent  churches. 

V.  Specific  Functions  of  the  Council 

In  order  to  prevent  overlapping,  friction,  competition 
or  waste  in  the  work  of  the  existing  denominational 
boards  or  administrative  agencies,  and  to  further  the  effi- 
ciency of  that  degree  of  cooperation  which  they  have 
already  achieved  in  their  work  at  home  and  abroad : 


358 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


(a)  The  Council  shall  harmonize  and  unify  the  work 
of  the  united  churches. 

( b ) It  shall  direct  such  consolidation  of  their  mission- 
ary activities  as  well  as  of  particular  churches  in  over- 
churched areas  as  is  consonant  with  the  law  of  the  land 
or  of  the  particular  denomination  affected.  Such  consol- 
idation may  be  progressively  achieved,  as  by  the  uniting 
of  the  boards  or  churches  of  any  two  or  more  constituent 
denominations,  or  may  be  accelerated,  delayed,  or  dis- 
pensed with,  as  the  interests  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  may 
require. 

( c ) If  and  when  any  two  or  more  constituent  churches, 
by  their  supreme  governing  or  advisory  bodies,  submit 
to  the  Council  for  its  arbitrament  any  matter  of  mutual 
concern,  not  hereby  already  covered,  the  Council  shall 
consider  and  pass  upon  such  matter  so  submitted. 

( d)  The  Council  shall  undertake  inspirational  and  edu- 
cational leadership  of  such  sort  and  measure  as  may  be 
proper,  under  the  powers  delegated  to  it  by  the  constitu- 
ent churches  in  the  fields  of  evangelism,  social  service, 
religious  education,  and  the  like. 

VI.  The  assent  of  each  constituent  church  to  this  plan 
shall  be  certified  from  its  supreme  governing  or  advisory 
body  by  the  appropriate  officers  thereof  to  the  chairman 
of  the  Ad  Interim  Committee,  which  shall  have  power 
upon  a two-thirds  vote  to  convene  the  Council  as  soon  as 
the  assent  of  at  least  six  denominations  shall  have  been 
so  certified. 

VII.  Amendments 

This  plan  of  organic  union  shall  be  subject  to  amend- 
ment only  by  the  constituent  churches,  but  the  Council 
may  overture  to  such  bodies  any  amendment  which  shall 
have  originated  in  said  Council  and  shall  have  been 
adopted  by  a three-fourths  vote. 


APPENDIX  III 


AN  APPEAL  TO  ALL  CHRISTIAN  PEOPLE 

From  the  Bishops  Assembled  in  the  Lambeth  Conference 
of  1920 

We,  Archbishops,  Bishops  Metropolitan,  and  other 
Bishops  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  in  full  communion 
with  the  Church  of  England,  in  Conference  assembled, 
realizing  the  responsibility  which  rests  upon  us  at  this 
time,  and  sensible  of  the  sympathy  and  the  prayers  of 
marv,  both  within  and  without  our  own  Communion, 
make  this  appeal  to  all  Christian  people. 

We  acknowledge  all  those  who  believe  in  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  have  been  baptized  into  the  name  of 
the  Holy  Trinity,  as  sharing  with  us  membership  in  the 
universal  Church  of  Christ  which  is  His  Body.  We  be- 
lieve that  the  Holy  Spirit  has  called  us  in  a very  solemn 
and  special  manner  to  associate  ourselves  in  penitence  and 
prayer  with  all  those  who  deplore  the  divisions  of  Chris- 
tian people,  and  are  inspired  by  the  vision  and  hope  of  a 
visible  unity  of  the  whole  Church. 

I.  We  believe  that  God  wills  fellowship.  By  God’s 
own  act  this  fellowship  was  made  in  and  through  Jesus 
Christ,  and  its  life  is  in  His  Spirit.  We  believe  that  it  is 
God’s  purpose  to  manifest  this  fellowship,  so  far  as  this 
world  is  concerned,  in  an  outward,  visible,  and  united 
society,  holding  one  faith,  having  its  own  recognized 
officers,  using  God-given  means  of  grace,  and  inspiring 
all  its  members  to  the  world-wide  service  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  This  is  what  we  mean  by  the  Catholic  Church. 

II.  This  united  fellowship  is  not  visibly  in  the  world 
today.  On  the  one  hand  there  are  other  ancient  episcopal 
Communions  in  East  and  West,  to  whom  ours  is  bound 

359 


360 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


by  many  ties  of  common  faith  and  tradition.  On  the 
other  hand  there  are  the  great  non-episcopal  Commun- 
ions, standing  for  rich  elements  of  truth,  liberty,  and  life 
which  might  otherwise  have  been  obscured  or  neglected. 
With  them  we  are  closely  linked  by  many  affinities,  racial, 
historical,  and  spiritual.  We  cherish  the  earnest  hope 
that  all  these  Communions,  and  our  own,  may  be  led  by 
the  Spirit  into  the  unity  of  the  Faith  and  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  Son  of  God.  But  in  fact  we  are  all  organ- 
ized in  different  groups,  each  one  keeping  to  itself  gifts 
that  rightly  belong  to  the  whole  fellowship,  and  tending 
to  live  its  own  life  apart  from  the  rest. 

III.  The  causes  of  division  lie  deep  in  the  past,  and 
are  by  no  means  simple  or  wholly  blameworthy.  Yet 
none  can  doubt  that  self-will,  ambition,  and  lack  of  char- 
ity among  Christians  have  been  principal  factors  in  the 
mingled  process,  and  that  these,  together  with  blindness 
to  the  sin  of  disunion,  are  still  mainly  responsible  for  the 
breaches  of  Christendom.  We  acknowledge  this  condi- 
tion of  broken  fellowship  to  be  contrary  to  God’s  will, 
and  we  desire  frankly  to  confess  our  share  in  the  guilt 
of  thus  crippling  the  Body  of  Christ  and  hindering  the 
activity  of  His  Spirit. 

IV.  The  times  call  us  to  a new  outlook  and  new  meas- 
ures. The  Faith  cannot  be  adequately  apprehended  and 
the  battle  of  the  Kingdom  cannot  be  worthily  fought 
while  the  body  is  divided,  and  is  thus  unable  to  grow  up 
into  the  fulness  of  the  life  of  Christ.  The  time  has  come, 
we  believe,  for  all  the  separated  groups  of  Christians  to 
agree  in  forgetting  the  things  which  are  behind  and  reach- 
ing out  towards  the  goal  of  a reunited  Catholic  Church. 
The  removal  of  the  barriers  which  have  arisen  between 
them  will  only  be  brought  about  by  a new  comradeship  of 
those  whose  faces  are  definitely  set  this  way. 

The  vision  which  rises  before  us  is  that  of  a Church 
genuinely  Catholic,  loyal  to  all  Truth,  and  gathering  into 
its  fellowship  all  ‘who  profess  and  call  themselves  Chris- 


APPENDIX  III 


361 


tians,’  within  whose  visible  unity  all  the  treasures  of 
faith  and  order,  bequeathed  as  a heritage  by  the  past  to 
the  present,  shall  be  possessed  in  common,  and  made  serv- 
iceable to  the  whole  Body  of  Christ.  Within  this  unity 
Christian  Communions  now  separated  from  one  another 
would  retain  much  that  has  long  been  distinctive  in  their 
methods  of  worship  and  service.  It  is  through  a rich 
diversity  of  life  and  devotion  that  the  unity  of  the  whole 
fellowship  will  be  fulfilled. 

V.  This  means  an  adventure  of  good  will  and  still  more 
of  faith,  for  nothing  less  is  required  than  a new  discovery 
of  the  creative  resources  of  God.  To  this  adventure  we 
are  convinced  that  God  is  now  calling  all  the  members 
of  His  Church. 

VI.  We  believe  that  the  visible  unity  of  the  Church 
will  be  found  to  involve  the  whole-hearted  acceptance  of : 

The  Holy  Scriptures,  as  the  record  of  God’s  rev- 
elation of  Himself  to  man,  and  as  being  the  rule  and 
ultimate  standard  of  faith;  and  the  Creed  commonly 
called  Nicene,  as  the  sufficient  statement  of  the 
Christian  faith,  and  either  it  or  the  Apostles’  Creed 
as  the  Baptismal  confession  of  belief : 

The  divinely  instituted  sacraments  of  Baptism  and 
the  Holy  Communion,  as  expressing  for  all  the  cor- 
porate life  of  the  whole  fellowship  in  and  with 
Christ : 

A ministry  acknowledged  by  every  part  of  the 
Church  as  possessing  not  only  the  inward  call  of  the 
Spirit,  but  also  the  commission  of  Christ  and  the 
authority  of  the  whole  body. 

VII.  May  we  not  reasonably  claim  that  the  Episcopate 
is  the  one  means  of  providing  such  a ministry?  It  is  not 
that  we  call  in  question  for  a moment  the  spiritual  reality 
of  the  ministries  of  those  Communions  which  do  not  pos- 
sess the  Episcopate.  On  the  contrary  we  thankfully  ac- 


362 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


knowledge  that  these  ministries  have  been  manifestly 
blessed  and  owned  by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  effective  means 
of  grace.  But  we  submit  that  considerations  alike  of 
history  and  of  present  experience  justify  the  claim  which 
we  make  on  behalf  of  the  Episcopate.  Moreover,  we 
would  urge  that  if  is  now  and  will  prove  to  be  in  the 
future  the  best  instrument  for  maintaining  the  unity  and 
continuity  of  the  Church.  But  we  greatly  desire  that  the 
office  of  a Bishop  should  be  everywhere  exercised  in  a 
representative  and  constitutional  manner,  and  more  truly 
express  all  that  ought  to  be  involved  for  the  life  of  the 
Christian  Family  in  the  title  of  Father-in-God.  Nay 
more,  we  eagerly  look  forward  to  the  day  when  through 
its  acceptance  in  a united  Church  we  may  all  share  in 
that  grace  which  is  pledged  to  the  members  of  the  whole 
body  in  the  apostolic  rite  of  the  laying-on  of  hands,  and 
in  the  joy  and  fellowship  of  a Eucharist  in  which  as  one 
Family  we  may  together,  without  any  doubtfulness  of 
mind,  offer  to  the  one  Lord  our  worship  and  service. 

VIII.  We  believe  that  for  all,  the  truly  equitable  ap- 
proach to  union  is  by  the  way  of  mutual  deference  to  one 
another’s  consciences.  To  this  end,  we  who  send  forth 
this  appeal  would  say  that  if  the  authorities  of  other 
Communions  should  so  desire,  we  are  persuaded  that, 
terms  of  union  having  been  otherwise  satisfactorily  ad- 
justed, Bishops  and  clergy  of  our  Communion  would  will- 
ingly accept  from  these  authorities  a form  of  commission 
or  recognition  which  would  commend  our  ministry  to 
their  congregations,  as  having  its  place  in  the  one  family 
life.  It  is  not  in  our  power  to  know  how  far  this  sugges- 
tion may  be  acceptable  to  those  to  whom  we  offer  it. 
We  can  only  say  that  we  offer  it  in  all  sincerity  as  a token 
of  our  longing  that  all  ministries  of  grace,  theirs  and  ours, 
shall  be  available  for  the  service  of  our  Lord  in  a united 
Church. 

It  is  our  hope  that  the  same  motive  would  lead  minis- 
ters who  have  not  received  it  to  accept  a commission 


APPENDIX  III  363 

through  episcopal  ordination,  as  obtaining  for  them  a 
ministry  throughout  the  whole  fellowship. 

In  so  acting  no  one  of  us  could  possibly  be  taken  to 
repudiate  his  past  ministry.  God  forbid  that  any  man 
should  repudiate  a past  experience  rich  in  spiritual  bless- 
ings for  himself  and  others.  Nor  would  any  of  us  be 
dishonoring  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  whose  call  led  us 
all  to  our  several  ministries,  and  whose  power  enabled 
us  to  perform  them.  We  shall  be  publicly  and  formally 
seeking  additional  recognition  of  a new  call  to  wider  serv- 
ice in  a reunited  Church,  and  imploring  for  ourselves 
God’s  grace  and  strength  to  fulfil  the  same. 

IX.  The  spiritual  leadership  of  the  Catholic  Church 
in  days  to  come,  for  which  the  world  is  manifestly  wait- 
ing, depends  upon  the  readiness  with  which  each  group 
is  prepared  to  make  sacrifices  for  the  sake  of  a common 
fellowship,  a common  ministry,  and  a common  service 
to  the  world. 

We  place  this  ideal  first  and  foremost  before  ourselves 
and  our  own  people.  We  call  upon  them  to  make  the 
effort  to  meet  the  demands  of  a new  age  with  a new  out- 
look. To  all  other  Christian  people  whom  our  words 
may  reach  we  make  the  same  appeal.  We  do  not  ask  that 
any  one  Communion  should  consent  to  be  absorbed  in 
another.  We  do  ask  that  all  should  unite  in  a new  and 
great  endeavor  to  recover  and  to  manifest  to  the  world 
the  unity  of  the  Body  of  Christ  for  which  He  prayed. 

The  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Lambeth  Conference 
on  the  subject  of  union  (except  those  dealing  with  par- 
ticular communions)  are  printed  below. 

“10.  The  Conference  recommends  to  tne  authorities 
of  the  Churches  of  the  Anglican  Communion  that  they 
should,  in  such  ways  and  at  such  times  as  they  think  best, 
formally  invite  the  authorities  of  other  Churches  within 
their  areas  to  confer  with  them  concerning  the  possibility 
of  taking  definite  steps  to  cooperate  in  a common  en- 


364 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


deavour,  on  the  lines  set  forth  in  the  above  Appeal,  to  re- 
store the  unity  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

“11.  The  Conference  recognizes  that  the  task  of  ef- 
fecting union  with  other  Christian  Communions  must  be 
undertaken  by  the  various  national,  regional,  or  provin- 
cial authorities  of  the  Churches  within  the  Anglican 
Communion,  and  confidently  commits  to  them  the  carry- 
ing out  of  this  task  on  lines  that  are  in  general  harmony 
with  the  principles  underlying  its  Appeal  and  Resolutions. 

“12,  The  Conference  approves  the  following  state- 
ments as  representing  the  counsel  which  it  is  prepared  to 
give  to  the  Bishops,  Clergy,  and  other  members  of  our 
own  Communion  on  various  subjects  which  bear  upon 
the  problems  of  reunion,  provided  that  such  counsel  is 
not  to  be  regarded  as  calling  in  question  any  Canons  or 
official  declarations  of  any  Synod  or  House  of  Bishops 
of  a national,  regional,  or  provincial  Church  which  has 
already  dealt  with  these  matters. 

“(A)  In  view  of  prospects  and  projects  of  reunion — 
“(i)  A Bishop  is  justified  in  giving  occasional  au- 
thorization to  ministers,  not  episcopally  ordained,  who 
in  his  judgment  are  working  towards  an  ideal  of  union 
such  as  is  described  in  our  Appeal,  to  preach  in  churches 
within  his  Diocese,  and  to  clergy  of  the  Diocese  to 
preach  in  the  churches  of  such  ministers : 

“(ii)  The  Bishops  of  the  Anglican  Communion  will 
not  question  the  action  cf  any  Bishop  who,  in  the  few 
years  between  the  initiation  and  the  completion  of  a 
definite  scheme  of  union,  shall  countenance  the  irregu- 
larity of  admitting  to  Communion  the  baptized  but  un- 
confirmed communicants  of  the  non-episcopal  congre- 
gations concerned  in  the  scheme : 

“(iii)  The  Conference  gives  its  general  approval  to 
the  suggestions  contained  in  the  report  of  the  Sub- 
Committee  on  Reunion  with  Non-Episcopal  Churches 
in  reference  to  the  status  and  work  of  ministers  who 
may  remain  after  union  without  episcopal  ordination. 

“(B)  Believing,  however,  that  certain  lines  of  action 
might  imperil  both  the  attainment  of  its  ideal  and  the 
unity  of  its  own  Communion,  the  Conference  declares 
that — 

“(i)  It  cannot  approve  of  general  schemes  of  inter- 
communion or  exchange  of  pulpits : 

“(ii)  In  accordance  with  the  principle  of  Church 


APPENDIX  III 


365 


order  set  forth  in  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal  attached 
to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  it  cannot  approve  the 
celebration  in  Anglican  churches  of  the  Holy  Com- 
munion for  members  of  the  Anglican  Church  by  min- 
isters who  have  not  been  episcopally  ordained ; and  that 
it  should  be  regarded  as  the  general  rule  of  the  Church 
that  Anglican  communicants  should  receive  Holy  Com- 
munion only  at  the  hands  of  ministers  of  their  own 
Church,  or  of  Churches  in  communion  therewith. 
“(C)  In  view  of  doubts  and  varieties  of  practice 
which  have  caused  difficulties  in  the  past,  the  Con- 
ference declares  that— 

“(i)  Nothing  in  these  Resolutions  is  intended  to  in- 
dicate that  the  rule  of  Confirmation  as  conditioning 
admission  to  the  Holy  Communion  must  necessarily  ap- 
ply to  the  case  of  baptized  persons  who  seek  Com- 
munion under  conditions  which  in  the  Bishop’s  judg- 
ment justify  their  admission  thereto. 

“(ii)  In  cases  in  which  it  is  impossible  for  the 
Bishop’s  judgment  to  be  obtained  beforehand,  the 
priest  should  remember  that  he  has  no  canonical  au- 
thority to  refuse  Communion  to  any  baptized  person 
kneeling  before  the  Lord’s  Table  (unless  he  be  excom- 
municate by  name,  or,  in  the  canonical  sense  of  the 
term,  a cause  of  scandal  to  the  faithful)  ; and  that,  if  a 
question  may  properly  be  raised  as  to  the  future  ad- 
mission of  any  such  person  to  Holy  Communion,  either 
because  he  has  not  been  confirmed  or  for  other  reasons, 
the  priest  should  refer  the  matter  to  the  Bishop  for 
counsel  or  direction. 

“13.  The  Conference  recommends  that,  wherever  it 
has  not  already  been  done,  Councils  representing  all 
Christian  Communions  should  be  formed  within  such 
areas  as  may  be  deemed  most  convenient,  as  centres  of 
united  effort  to  promote  the  physical,  moral,  and  social 
welfare  of  the  people,  and  the  extension  of  the  rule  of 
Christ  among  all  nations  and  over  every  region  of  human 
life. 

“14.  It  is  important  to  the  cause  of  reunion  that  every 
branch  of  the  Anglican  Communion  should  develop  the 
constitutional  government  of  the  Church  and  should  make 
a fuller  use  of  the  capacities  of  its  members  for  service.” 


APPENDIX  IV 


THE  GENEVA  CONFERENCES  IN  1920 

During  the  summer  of  1920,  three  conferences  were 
held  in  Switzerland,  which  are  of  considerable  impor- 
tance in  the  progress  toward  church  unity.  Each  of  them 
was  characterized  by  a very  wide  representation  of  Chris- 
tian communions.  Taken  together  they  probably  form 
the  most  representative  assembling  of  Christian  forces 
known  in  the  world  since  the  Eastern  and  Western 
Churches  broke  apart. 

I.  On  Faith  and  Order 

The  most  outstanding  of  the  three  was  also  the  one 
most  directly  pointed  toward  church  unity.  For  some 
years  the  Commission  on  Faith  and  Order,  of  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  has  been 
steadily  at  work,  promoting  meetings  and  discussions  at 
which  the  various  Christian  bodies  might  set  forth  each 
its  own  contribution  to  the  treasury  of  the  whole  Church, 
and  through  which  these  bodies  might  grow  into  more 
of  that  mutual  respect  and  understanding  which  precon- 
ditions further  progress.  The  Commission  has  been  mov- 
ing toward  a great  gathering  of  representatives  of  all 
Christian  communions. 

The  conference  held  at  Geneva  August  12th  to  25th  was 
not  this  proposed  general  gathering,  but  a preliminary 
conference,  to  decide  whether  the  projected  meeting 
should  take  place,  and  if  so,  at  what  time  and  with  what 
scope.  A special  committee  had  visited  Europe  in  ad- 
vance, securing  from  all  branches  of  the  Christian  Church 
but  one  cordial  expression  of  interest  and  promises  to 
send  delegates  to  such  a preliminary  gathering.  The 
one  exception  was,  of  course,  the  Church  of  Rome,  which 

366 


APPENDIX  IV  367 

consistently  refuses  to  discuss  church  unity  except  on 
the  basis  of  a return  to  its  own  fold. 

Some  forty  nations  and  some  eighty  communions  were 
represented  at  Geneva.  The  addresses  were  all  given  in 
three  languages,  English,  French,  and  German.  Greek 
was  not  infrequently  heard,  as  the  interested  (and  inter- 
esting) delegates  from  the  various  divisions  of  the  Ortho- 
dox Church  of  Eastern  Europe  took  part  in  the  sessions.1 

Nothing  could  have  been  finer  than  the  spirit  of  fellow- 
ship, cordial  good  will,  and  breadth  of  view  which  char- 
acterized the  sessions.  There  was  great  plainness  of 
speech.  There  was  little  if  any  evidence  of  yielding  to 
the  temptation  to  clothe  ideas  in  language  vague  enough 
to  lead  to  a semblance  of  uniting,  without  real  and  deep 
agreement.  Much  of  the  time  was  taken  up  with  state- 
ments, on  the  part  of  representatives  of  the  larger  divi- 
sions of  the  Church,  of  their  distinctive  tenets  and  their 
understanding  of  the  problem  of  unity. 

It  was  decided  that  a World  Conference  on  Faith  and 
Order  should  be  called  at  some  time  in  the  future,  with 
the  widest  possible  representation;  and  a strong  com- 
mittee to  arrange  for  it  was  designated. 

The  best  outcome  of  the  conference,  however,  was  not 
any  formal  action  taken,  but  the  contact  of  men  of  many 
minds  and  from  many  lands,  and  their  discovery  of  a real 
unity  in  Christ  and  in  their  love  and  loyalty  toward  Him. 
The  presence  of  Bishop  Brent  as  Chairman  was  a great 
asset  to  the  cause.  The  quiet,  gracious,  persistent,  con- 
secrated influence  of  Robert  H.  Gardiner,  Secretary  of 
the  conference,  has  made  him  the  moving  spirit  in  the 
work  of  the  Commission.  The  Continuation  Committee 
has  sent  out  a letter  propounding  important  questions 
about  the  faith  of  the  Church,  and  urging  that  discussions 
be  held  and  prayers  offered  for  a united  Church. 

'A  full  report  of  the  conference,  entitled  “Report  of  the  Pre- 
liminary Meeting  at  Geneva,  Switzerland,  August  12-20,  1920,” 
can  be  secured  upon  application  to  the  secretary,  Robert  H. 
Gardiner,  Gardiner,  Maine. 


368 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


II.  On  the  Life  and  Work  of  the  Church 

Smaller,  simpler,  less  elaborate  in  preparation  and  in 
action,  and  quite  different  in  scope  and  outlook,  was  the 
special  conference  on  the  Life  and  Work  of  the  Church, 
held  at  Geneva  August  9th  to  12th.  This  grew  out  of  the 
conviction  on  the  part  of  a small  group  gathered  at  the 
Hague  in  October,  1919,  that  there  would  be  great  value 
in  a conference  of  the  whole  Church  of  Christ  to  con- 
sider unitedly  its  practical  scope,  function,  and  mission — 
a conference  to  do  for  the  whole  task  of  the  Church  what 
the  Edinburgh  Conference  did  for  the  one  subject  of 
missions.  The  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ 
in  America  took  up  the  matter  strongly,  and,  by  general 
action,  in  which  the  leaders  were  the  Federal  Council  and 
Archbishop  Soderblom  of  Upsala,  Sweden,  this  prelim- 
inary and  brief  conference  in  Geneva  was  arranged. 

Little  was  done  beyond  resolving  with  great  unanimity 
and  enthusiasm  to  hold,  “in  two  or  three  years,”  a “Uni- 
versal Conference  of  the  Church  of  Christ  on  Life  and 
Work,”  and  appointing  a commission  to  plan  for  the  pro- 
jected meeting.  The  scope  of  the  conference  was  dis- 
cussed. It  was  felt  to  be  vital  that  the  call  to  it  should 
come,  not  from  this  or  any  other  informal  body,  but  from 
the  responsible  authorities  of  the  various  Christian  com- 
munions ; and  the  matter  will  be  so  presented  and  for- 
warded, in  order  to  avoid  the  impression  that  a self-se- 
lected body,  without  any  representative  authority  or 
responsibility,  is  presuming  to  act  for  the  Church. 

This  conference  sends  out  a significant  call  to  prayer: 

“The  members  of  this  preliminary  International  Con- 
ference at  Geneva,  drawn  together  by  a consciousness  of 
the  painful  and  urgent  need  of  the  world,  and  by  a con- 
viction that  only  the  Gospel  and  spirit  and  leadership  of 
Jesus  Christ  can  meet  that  need,  and  that  only  a church 
united,  consecrated,  daring,  and  self-forgetful  can  form 
the  body  through  which  this  spirit  may  do  His  gracious 
and  healing  work,  earnestly  and  solemnly  appeal  to  Chris- 


APPENDIX  IV 


369 


tians  of  every  name  and  form,  of  every  land  and  race,  to 
pray  now  and  continually  for  the  coming  of  a fuller  unity 
for  the  world ; for  a readiness  on  the  part  of  all  Chris- 
tians to  make  new  ventures  of  faith,  and  to  take  more 
seriously  the  implications  of  the  Gospel;  for  the  deepen- 
ing and  broadening  of  love  among  all  Christ’s  followers 
toward  all  men;  for  the  elimination  of  all  passion  and 
prejudice,  and  the  growth  of  peace  and  brotherhood;  for 
clearer  vision  of  the  will  of  God  and  of  the  work  of 
Christ  in  this  day ; and  for  all  that  may  further  the  com- 
ing of  His  Kingdom. 

“Especially  do  we  ask  our  fellow-Christians,  every- 
where, to  pray  for  the  success  of  the  Conference,  which 
is  to  consider  the  place  and  duty  of  the  Church  of  Christ, 
and  the  claims  upon  it  of  the  Master  and  of  mankind. 
The  united  and  unceasing  intercession  of  all  Christians 
is  asked,  that,  through  this  gathering  of  Christians  from 
all  the  world,  the  Church  may  come  to  clear  realization 
of  its  unity,  its  opportunity,  and  its  responsibility;  that 
the  spirit  of  Christ  may  fill  and  control  His  body,  the 
Church  ; and  that,  through  His  mighty  and  gracious  work- 
ing, mankind  may  be  led  into  the  larger  life  which  is  in 
Him,  and  the  whole  creation,  now  groaning  and  travail- 
ing in  pain,  may  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corrup- 
tion and  brought  into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  sons 
of  God.” 

III.  The  World  Alliance  for  International 
Friendship 

The  third  conference  differed  from  the  other  two  in 
being  an  official  gathering  of  an  organized  movement,  and 
in  addressing  itself  to  a more  limited  end.  It  was  the  An- 
nual Meeting  of  the  International  Commission  of  the 
World  Alliance  for  Promoting  International  Friendship 
through  the  Churches. 

This  World  Alliance  was  started  in  the  summer  of 
I9I4>  just  as  the  war  broke  out.  Its  aim  is  very  simple 
and  practical — to  get  the  churches  in  every  country  to 
function  strongly  and  enthusiastically  as  the  chief  agent 
in  the  land  for  the  promotion  of  good  will  toward  other 
nations  and  races.  This  it  tries  to  do  by  establishing  a 


370 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


council  in  every  nation  where  there  is  a Christian  church, 
and  binding  these  councils  together  by  an  International 
Committee. 

Practically  all  the  existing  councils  were  represented 
at  the  conference.  Discussion  was  very  free  and  very 
friendly.  Representatives  of  nations  lately  at  war  and  of 
contending  creeds  sat  together  on  terms  of  good  will, 
and  felt  the  present  possibility  of  a real  unity  on  the  basis 
of  this  one  simple  aim.  The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury 
was  elected  President  of  the  Alliance.  Various  pro- 
nouncements were  made,  on  missions,  on  the  making  and 
keeping  of  treaties,  on  the  rights  of  religious  minorities, 
and  on  disarmament.  But  here,  as  in  the  other  gather- 
ings, the  chief  gain  was  not  in  any  formal  action,  but  in 
the  personal  contacts,  and  the  new  influences  thereby 
started,  making  for  better  relations  between  the  nations 
and  races.  It  is  impossible  to  estimate  the  influence  for 
good  which  will  be  exerted  if  Christians  of  all  commun- 
ions come  to  see  as  one  of  the  vital  aims  and  ends  of 
their  religion  the  fostering  of  good  will  and  friendliness 
between  nations  and  races,  and  the  securing  of  justice 
and  fairness  in  international  relations. 

These  three  conferences  bid  fair  to  prove  helpful  in 
the  progress  toward  church  unity,  each  in  its  own  way. 
They  did  not  overlap  and  their  future  developments  need 
not.  While  only  one  of  them  aims  specifically  at  the  or- 
ganic union  of  the  Church,  the  others  contribute  no  less 
vitally  to  that  spiritual  unity,  without  which  organic  union 
would  be  meaningless.  To  set  the  Church  at  discuss- 
ing problems  of  faith  and  order,  to  summon  it  to  a 
united  view  of  its  function  and  tasks,  and  to  get  it  to  act, 
at  once  and  increasingly,  as  a great,  united  agency  for 
international  friendliness — these  are  all  important  parts 
of  the  great  movement  toward  a Church  that  shall  be  one 
in  spirit  and,  eventually,  one  in  real  operation. 


APPENDIX  V 


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY  ON  PRESENT 

MOVEMENTS  TOWARD  CHRISTIAN  UNITY 

The  following  bibliography  aims  only  to  suggest  a few 
of  the  more  important  recent  publications  dealing  with 
the  present  situation  in  the  movement  toward  greater 
Christian  unity.  No  attempt  is  here  made  to  be  exhaus- 
tive, nor  are  reading  lists  given  on  the  historical  and 
doctrinal  aspects  of  the  question.  For  these  almost  the 
whole  range  of  church  history  and  theology  would  have 
to  be  considered. 

I.  Official  Pronouncements  of  Churches  or  of  Groups 
of  Christians 

Africa 

Proposed  constitution  of  Alliance  of  Missionary  So- 
cieties in  British  East  Africa.  Adopted  at  the  united 
conference  of  Episcopal  and  Free  Church  mission- 
aries at  Kikuyu,  July  26,  1918.  Discussed  on  pages 
313-314  of  this  volume.  Reprinted  in  International 
Review  of  Missions,  January,  1920.  See  also  Kikuyu 
Rediviva,  Constructive  Quarterly,  June,  1919. 

American  Council  on  Organic  Union  of  the 
Churches  of  Christ.  Plan  of  Union  for  the  Evan- 
gelical Churches  of  the  U.  S.  A.  Adopted  at  Phila- 
delphia, February  3-6,  1920.  Reprinted  as  Appendix 
II  of  this  volume.  Discussed  on  pages  156-160. 

Anglican 

1.  The  Lambeth  Quadrilateral.  Submitted  by  the 
House  of  Bishops  of  the  General  Convention  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  at  Chicago  in 
1886  and  adopted  by  the  Lambeth  Conference  of 
37i 


372 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


1888.  Reprinted  on  pages  250-251  of  this  report 
in  the  form  in  which  adopted  at  Chicago,  and  on 
page  349  with  the  modifications  made  by  the  Lam- 
beth Conference. 

2.  Conference  of  Bishops  of  the  Anglican  Communion, 
Holden  at  Lambeth  Palace,  July  5-August  7,  1920; 
Encyclical  letter  from  the  Bishops,  with  the  Reso- 
lution and  Reports.  Society  for  Promoting  Chris- 
tian Knowledge,  London,  or  Macmillian  Co.,  New 
York,  1920. 

The  now  widely-known  “Appeal  to  all  Christian 
People,”  on  the  subject  of  the  unity  of  the  Church, 
adopted  by  the  conference  of  bishops,  is  reprinted  as 
Appendix  III  of  the  present  volume. 

Australia 

Proposed  Basis  of  Union  for  Presbyterian,  Congre- 
gational, and  Methodist  Churches.  Briefly  summa- 
rized by  George  Hall  in  Christian  Unity  in 
Australia,  Christian  Union  Quarterly,  July,  1920. 

Canada 

Proposed  Basis  of  Union  of  Presbyterian,  Methodist, 
and  Congregational  Churches  in  Canada.  Reprinted 
as  an  Appendix  to  Robert  Campbell’s  Relations  of 
the  Christian  Churches,  Toronto,  1913.  See  also  E. 
Thomas,  Church  Union  in  Canada,  American  Jour- 
nal of  Theology,  July,  1919. 

China 

Proposed  Plan  of  Union  and  Doctrinal  Basis  for  the 
United  Church  of  Christ  in  China.  Adopted  by  Con- 
gregationalists  and  Presbyterians  in  1919.  Referred 
to  on  page  312  of  this  report.  Reprinted  in  Inter- 
national Review  of  Missions,  January,  1920. 

“Concordat.”  Proposal  for  an  Approach  towards 
Unity.  Prepared  by  members  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal and  of  the  Congregationalist  Churches  in  the 


APPENDIX  V 


373 


U.  S.,  March,  1919.  Reprinted  as  Appendix  5 in 
“Approaches  towards  Christian  Unity,”  edited  by 
Newman  Smyth  and  Williston  Walker,  New  Haven, 
1919;  also  as  an  appendix  to  The  Call  to  Unity, 
by  William  T.  Manning,  New  York,  1920.  For  a 
sympathetic  interpretation,  see  Newman  Smyth’s  “A 
Proposed  Approach  towards  Unity  in  the  United 
States,”  Constructive  Quarterly,  March,  1920. 

The  so-called  Concordat  proposes  that  canonical  sanc- 
tion be  given  by  the  Episcopal  Church  to  the  ordination 
of  any  properly  qualified  minister  of  a Congregational 
church,  if  he  so  desires  and  the  ecclesiastical  authority  to 
which  he  is  subject  consents,  and  provides  that  a minister 
thus  ordained  may  minister  to  both  Congregationalists 
and  Episcopalians. 

Declaration  of  Agreement  between  the  Disciples 
of  Christ  and  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
U.  S.  A.  Reprinted  on  page  74  of  “Towards  Chris- 
tian Unity,”  by  Peter  Ainslie,  Seminary  House, 
Baltimore,  1918. 

A statement  jointly  adopted  in  1916  by  the  Committee 
on  Church  Cooperation  and  Union  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  U.  S.  A.  and  the  Commission  on  Christian 
Unity  of  the  Disciples  of  Christ,  concerning  points  of 
agreement  between  the  two  bodies.  Statements  as  to 
points  of  agreement  with  the  Congregationalists  and  the 
Christians  are  reprinted  in  the  same  volume. 

Faith  and  Order,  World  Conference  on.  Report  and 
Resolution  adopted  at  the  General  Convention  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  1910  suggest- 
ing the  Conference. 

This  statement  and  various  documents  issued  by  the 
Joint  Commission  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
on  Faith  and  Order  may  be  secured  on  application  to  the 
Secretary,  R.  H.  Gardiner,  Gardiner,  Maine. 

Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in 
America 

I.  Constitution  and  By-Laws.  Plan  of  federation 


374 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


recommended  by  the  Interchurch  Conference  of 
1905 ; adopted  by  the  national  assemblies  of  the 
constituent  bodies,  1906-1908;  ratified  by  the  Coun- 
cil, December  2-8,  1908;  amended  1912  and  1916. 

2.  Report  of  Committee  on  Methods  of  Cooperation. 
Appointed  on  October  22,  1920,  to  review  the  pres- 
ent interdenominational  situation  and  to  present 
recommendations  to  the  Federal  Council ; adopted 
by  the  Council  December  4,  1920. 

The  latter  proposes  steps  which  the  Federal  Council 
should  take  in  order  to  serve  the  churches  more  fully. 
Either  document  can  be  secured  from  the  Federal  Coun- 
cil, 105  East  22d  Street,  New  York. 

India.  South  India  Proposals  for  Church  Union 

1.  Statement  drawn  up  by  members  of  the  Anglican 
and  South  India  United  Churches,  May  1 and  2, 
1919. 

2.  Statement  from  the  Malabar  Suffragan  and  other 
members  of  the  Mar  Thoma  Syrian  Church. 

Discussed  on  pages  312-313  of  this  volume.  Reprinted 
in  International  Review  of  Missions,  January,  1920.  See 
also  Sherwood  Eddy,  “Church  Union  in  the  Orient,” 
Constructive  Quarterly,  January,  1920,  and  A.  L. 
Warnshius,  “Church  Union  in  India,”  Christian  Work, 
December  4,  1920. 

Interim  Reports  of  Joint  Anglican  and  Noncon- 
formist Committee.  Reprinted  as  appendices  to 
“Approaches  to  Christian  Unity,”  edited  by  Newman 
Smyth  and  Williston  Walker,  New  Haven,  1919. 
The  Second  Interim  Report,  which  is  the  more  im- 
portant, is  also  reprinted  in  “The  Churches  at  the 
Cross  Roads,”  by  J.  H.  Shakespeare,  London,  1918; 
in  “The  Call  to  Unity,”  by  William  T.  Manning,  New 
York,  1920,  and  “Towards  Reunion,”  London,  1919. 

A record  of  conclusions  of  the  conferences,  referred 
to  on  page  351  of  this  report,  held  by  a committee  of 
Anglicans,  appointed  by  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury 
and  York,  and  representatives  of  the  English  Free 


APPENDIX  V 


375 


Churches  in  connection  with  the  proposed  World  Con- 
ference on  Faith  and  Order.  The  first  statement  discusses 
agreements  and  differences  on  matters  of  faith  and 
order.  The  second  statement  urges  the  “acceptance  of 
the  fact  of  episcopacy  and  not  any  theory  as  to  its  char- 
acter” and  suggests  that  it  “reassume  a constitutional 
form,  both  as  regards  the  method  of  the  election  of  the 
bishop,  as  by  clergy  and  people,  and  the  method  of 
government  after  election.” 

Lutheran.  Declaration  of  Principles  concerning  the 
Church  and  its  External  Relationships : adopted  at 
the  second  convention  of  the  United  Lutheran 
Church  in  America  at  Washington,  D.  C,  October 
26,  1920.  United  Lutheran  Publication  House,  Phil- 
adelphia. Reprinted  in  The  Lutheran. 

An  official  statement  of  great  importance,  setting  forth 
both  the  Lutheran  conception  of  the  Church,  and  the 
attitude  of  the  United  Lutheran  Church  to  cooperation 
and  union  with  other  Protestant  churches.  The  substance 
of  the  statement  is  given  on  pages  62-63  of  this  volume. 

Mansfield  Manifesto.  Resolutions  passed  by  a group 
of  Anglicans  and  Nonconformists  meeting  at  Mans- 
field College,  Oxford,  January  6-8,  1919.  Reprinted 
in  full  as  an  appendix  to  “Towards  Reunion,”  Lon- 
don, 1919,  and  in  part  as  an  appendix  to  “Pathways 
to  Christian  Unity,”  London,  1919. 

Recognizes  the  various  communions  as  all  valid  Chris- 
tian churches  and  holds  that  this  should  involve  recipro- 
cal participation  in  the  Holy  Communion ; agrees  to  a re- 
formed episcopacy  and  urges  interchange  of  pulpits  and 
practical  cooperation  as  a present  procedure. 

Reports  of  the  Conferences  between  Representa- 
tives of  the  Evangelical  Free  Churches  of 
England  on  the  Closer  Cooperation  of  the 
Churches;  held  at  Mansfield  College,  -Oxford, 
September,  1916,  and  at  London  and  Cambridge  in 
March,  1917.  Reprinted  as  appendix  to  “The 
Church  at  the  Cross  Roads”  by  J.  H.  Shakespeare, 


376 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


London,  1918,  and  also  as  an  appendix  to  “Unity 
and  Schism”  by  T.  A.  Lacey,  London,  1917. 

Consist  of  statements  by  four  sub-committees  on  Faith, 
Ministry,  Evangelization,  and  Constitution,  suggesting  a 
basis  for  a federation  of  the  Free  Churches. 

II.  Undenominational  Movements 

Clark,  Francis  E.  Christian  Endeavor  in  all  Lands: 
a Record  of  Twenty-five  Years’  Progress,  Philadel- 
phia, 1906. 

Dwight,  Henry  Otis.  Centennial  History  of  the 
American  Bible  Society.  New  York,  Macmillan 
Company,  1916. 

Mayo,  Katherine.  That  Damn  “Y.”  New  York, 
Association  Press,  1920. 

The  story,  told  in  popular  style,  of  the  service  of  the 
Y M C A in  the  World  War. 

Morse,  Richard  C.  My  Life  with  Young  Men:  Fifty 
Years  in  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association. 
New  York,  Association  Press,  1918. 

The  autobiography  of  a great  leader  in  the  Y M C A, 
giving  a summary  of  all  that  is  most  significant  in  the  first 
half  century  of  its  development. 

Mott,  John  R.  The  World’s  Student  Christian  Federa- 
tion: Origins,  Achievements,  Forecasts.  New  York, 
Association  Press,  1920. 

Report  of  the  Commission  on  the  Relation  of  the 
Young  Men’s  Christian  Association  to  the 
Churches.  Pamphlet.  Can  be  secured  from  the 
International  Committee  of  the  Y M C A,  347 
Madison  Avenue.,  New  York. 

Presented  to  the  Fortieth  International  Convention  of 
Young  Men’s  Christian  Associations,  Detroit,  Michigan, 
November  19-23,  1919.  Reviews  the  historic  relation  of 
the  Y M C A to  the  churches,  the  present  relation  of 
the  Y M C A to  the  churches  both  in  local  communities 


APPENDIX  V 


377 


and  in  the  nation  as  a whole,  the  spiritual  work  of  the 
YMCA  and  the  war-time  relation  of  the  Y M C A 
and  the  churches.  Excerpts  from  this  important  docu- 
ment are  printed  on  pages  127-132  of  this  volume. 

Report  of  the  National  Board  of  the  Young 
Women’s  Christian  Associations  of  the  United 
States  of  America  to  the  Sixth  National  Con- 
vention at  Cleveland,  Ohio,  April  13-20,  1920. 
Can  be  secured  from  the  National  Board,  600  Lex- 
ington Avenue,  New  York. 

Wilson,  Elizabeth.  Fifty  years  of  Association  Work 
with  Young  Women.  New  York,  National  Board  of 
YWCA,  600  Lexington  Avenue,  1916. 

An  historical  account  of  the  first  half  century  of  work 
of  the  Young  Women’s  Christian  Association. 

Year  Book  of  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Associa- 
tions of  North  America.  New  York,  Associa- 
tion Press,  1920. 

III.  Administrative  Unity 

Ashworth,  Robert  A.  The  Union  of  Christian  Forces 
in  America.  Philadelphia,  American  Sunday-School 
Union,  1915. 

Chapters  VII  and  VIII  discuss  cooperation  in  home  and 
foreign  missions. 

Brown,  Arthur  J.  Unity  and  Missions.  New  York, 
Revell,  1915. 

A comprehensive  study  of  the  bearing  of  the  foreign 
missionary  movement  on  Christian  unity,  with  a survey 
of  movements  in  the  direction  of  cooperation  and  union  in 
various  parts  of  the  world. 

Council  of  Church  Boards  of  Education  in  the 
United  States  of  America.  Year  book.  Can  be 
secured  from  19  South  La  Salle  Street,  Chicago. 

Published  annually  as  one  number  of  Christian  Edu- 
tion,  a monthly  bulletin  devoted  to  the  work  of  the 


378 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Church  College,  with  special  reference  to  cooperative 
activities. 

Minutes  of  Annual  Meeting  of  the  Sunday  School 
Council  of  Evangelical  Denominations,  Janu- 
ary, 1921.  Can  be  secured  from  the  Secretary,  99 
Dundas  Street,  Toronto. 

Interchurch  World  Movement  of  North  America. 
Handbook.  45  West  18th  Street,  New  York,  1919. 

The  official  guide  for  speakers  and  workers ; includes 
statement  of  plan  of  organization  and  full  outline  of  its 
contemplated  work.  The  religious  press  for  1919  and 
1920  contain  a host  of  articles  on  the  movement.  For  a 
typical  sympathetic  evaluation,  written  in  the  light  of 
the  discontinuance  of  its  activities,  see  “The  Truth 
About  the  Interchurch,”  by  a member  of  the  General 
Committee,  Christian  Work,  New  York,  December  11 
and  18,  1920. 

Home  Missions  Council.  Fourteenth  Annual  Meet- 
ing, January  13-15,  1921.  Can  be  secured  from  the 
Home  Missions  Council,  156  Fifth  Avenue,  New 
York. 

Includes  also  a summary  of  the  work  of  the  Council 
of  Women  for  Home  Missions. 

Foreign  Missions  Conference  of  North  America. 
Record  of  Twenty-eighth  Annual  Session,  January, 
1921.  Can  be  secured  from  the  Committee  of  Refer- 
ence and  Counsel,  25  Madison  Avenue,  New  York. 

Foreign  Missions,  Cooperation  in.  Report  submitted 
to  the  Fourth  Quadrennial  Meeting  of  the  Federal 
Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America, 
December  1-6,  1920.  Can  be  secured  from  the  Fed- 
eral Council,  105  East  22d  Street,  New  York. 

A brief  summary  of  the  existing  cooperation  both  at 
the  home  base  and  on  the  foreign  field,  with  special  refer- 
ence to  progress  between  1916  and  1920. 

Ritson,  J.  H,  The  Growth  of  Missionary  Cooperation 


APPENDIX  V 379 

since  1910.  International  Review  of  Missions , Janu- 
ary, 1919. 

Watson,  Charles  R.  Foreign  Missionary  Cooperation 
and  Unity  at  the  Home  Base  in  America,  Inter- 
national Review  of  Missions,  January,  1919. 

IV.  Federal  Unity 

1.  Among  denominations. 

Ashworth,  Robert  A.  The  Union  of  Christian  Forces 
in  America.  Chapter  V.  Philadelphia,  American 
Sunday-School  Union,  1915. 

Cross,  George.  Federation  of  the  Christian  Churches  in 
America : an  Interpretation.  American  Journal  of 
Theology,  April,  1919. 

Macfarland,  Charles  S.  The  Progress  of  Church 
Federation.  New  York,  Revell,  1917. 

A brief  interpretation  of  federal  union  and  a nar- 
rative of  the  origin  and  history  of  the  Federal  Council 
of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America. 

Quadrennial  Report  of  the  Federal  Council  of  the 
Churches  of  Christ  in  America,  Held  in  Bos- 
ton, Mass.,  December  1-6,  1920.  Can  be  secured 
from  105  East  22d  Street,  New  York,  as  can  also 
the  reports  of  the  Quadrennial  Meetings  in  1908, 
1912  and  1916,  and  annual  reports  of  the  Executive 
Committee. 

Sanford,  Elias  B.  Origin  and  History  of  the  Federal 
Council,  1916.  Can  be  secured  from  the  Federal 
Council,  105  East  22d  Street,  New  York. 

Shakespeare,  J.  H.  The  Churches  at  the  Cross-Roads ; 
a Study  in  Church  Unity,  London,  1918. 

A typical  statement  of  the  progressive  English  Baptist 
attitude,  by  an  outstanding  exponent  of  federal  union 
among  the  Free  Churches.  It  holds  that  denominations 
arose  providentially  to  bear  needed  witness  to  neglected 


380 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


truths  but  that  they  must  now  find  a way  of  securing 
unity  amid  diversity,  and  that  federal  union  is  the  next 
step  on  the  path  of  progress. 

^ War-Time  Agencies  of  the  Churches.  Directory  and 
Handbook.  Can  be  secured  from  Federal  Council, 
105  East  22d  Street,  New  York. 

A record  of  the  work  of  the  churches  in  the  World 
War,  with  special  reference  to  their  cooperation  in  the 
General  War-time  Commission  of  the  Churches. 

2.  Among  local  churches. 

Community  Programs  for  Cooperating  Churches. 
Edited  by  Roy  B.  Guild,  1920,  New  York,  Associa- 
tion Press. 

The  reports  presented  to  the  Church  and  Community 
Convention  in  Cleveland,  in  May,  1920,  setting  forth 
practical  programs  along  evangelistic,  social,  missionary 
and  educational  lines  for  local  federations. 

Guild,  Roy  B.  Practicing  Christian  Unity.  New  York, 
Association  Press,  1919. 

Manual  of  Interchurch  Work.  New  York,  1917. 
Can  be  secured  from  the  Federal  Council,  105  East 
22d  Street,  New  York. 

A handbook  on  methods  of  practical  cooperation  of 
the  churches  in  a local  community,  based  on  the  experi- 
ence of  successful  federations. 

The  material  dealing  directly  with  the  “union,”  “fed- 
erated,” or  “community”  church  (discussed  in  the  first 
half  of  Chapter  III  of  the  present  report)  is  rather 
fragmentary.  The  following  suggestions  will  illustrate 
the  type  of  sources  available: 

Gill,  C.  O.,  and  Pinchot,  Gifford.  Six  Thousand 
Country  Churches.  New  York,  Macmillan,  1919. 
Chapters  VI,  VII,  VIII. 

Jackson,  Henry  E.  The  Community  Church.  Boston, 
Houghton,  1919. 


APPENDIX  V 


38i 


Practicing  Church  Unity  in  Vermont.  Pamphlet, 
summarizing  the  experience  of  the  last  four  years 
in  allocating  fields  to  exclusive  occupancy  by  a 
single  church.  Can  be  secured  from  the  Home  Mis- 
sions Council,  156  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York.  Sum- 
marized in  “Interchurch  Cooperation  in  Vermont,” 
by  Paul  L.  Vogt,  Zion’s  Herald,  Boston,  January 
12,  1921. 

V.  Organic  Unity 

Ainslie,  Peter.  If  Not  a United  Church — What?  New 
York,  Revell,  1920. 

Representative  of  the  strong  interest  of  many  of  the 
Disciples  in  organic  union. 

Ashworth,  Robert  A.  The  Union  of  Christian  Forces 
in  America.  American  Sunday-School  Union,  Phil- 
adelphia, 1915. 

A liberal  Baptist  interpretation  of  the  whole  problem 
of  Christian  unity,  emphasizing  the  need  for  present  co- 
operation and  federation  and  suggesting  the  basis  on 
which  the  goal  of  an  organic  unity  may  ultimately  be 
reached. 

Lacey,  T.  A.  Unity  and  Schism.  London,  Mowbray, 
1917. 

Illustrative  of  the  point  of  view  which  rejects  the  pres- 
ent movement  toward  federation  on  the  ground  that  it 
seems  logically  to  imply  the  independence  of  the  de- 
nominational units  and  so  to  contradict  the  idea  of  es- 
sential unity. 

Manning,  William  T.  The  Call  to  Unity.  New  York, 
Macmillan,  1920. 

A very  recent  characteristic  statement  of  an  Episco- 
palian’s interest  in  the  consideration  of  questions  of 
faith  and  order  with  a view  to  organic  union. 

Gore,  Charles.  Steps  toward  Union.  London,  1919. 

Typical  of  the  Anglican  High  Churchman’s  view. 


382  CHRISTIAN  UNITY 

Headlam,  A.  C.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Church  and  Chris- 
tian Reunion.  London,  Longmans,  1920. 

One  of  the  best  recent  expositions  of  the  liberal  Angli- 
can view  of  the  basis  of  organic  union.  It  is  primarily 
historical,  considering  such  subjects  as  the  origins  of  the 
Church,  the  Apostolic  Church,  the  Catholic  Church,  and 
the  divisions  of  the  Church,  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church.  Urges  the  mutual  recognition  of  the  validity 
of  existing  orders  and,  for  the  future,  the  establishment 
of  episcopal  ordination  as  the  common  basis  of  church 
order. 

Pathways  to  Christian  Unity:  A Free  Church  View. 
London,  Macmillan,  1919. 

A series  of  valuable  papers  by  Free  Churchmen  on 
various  aspects  of  the  problem  of  Christian  unity,  urging 
increasing  contacts  and  understanding  among  the 
churches  by  means  of  cooperation  and  federation,  as  a 
preparation  for  a completer  unity  in  the  future. 

Smyth,  Newman,  and  Walker,  Williston,  Editors. 
Approaches  toward  Christian  Unity.  1919,  New 
Haven,  Yale  University  Press. 

A series  of  studies,  chiefly  historical,  presented  as 
suggesting  useful  material  for  consideration  in  connection 
with  organic  union.  Other  chapters  than  those  by  the 
editors  are  by  Raymond  Calkins  and  Bishop  Charles  H. 
Brent. 

Towards  Reunion  : Being  Contributions  toward  Mutual 
Understanding.  By  Church  of  England  and  Free 
Church  Writers.  1919,  London,  Macmillan. 

A group  of  articles  receiving  their  impetus  from  the 
conferences  at  Mansfield  College,  Oxford,  in  1918  and 
1919  between  Anglicans  and  Free  Churchmen.  Typical 
of  the  irenic  spirit  of  the  conference,  as  expressed  in 
the  Second  Interim  Report,  urging  the  “acceptance  of 
the  fact  of  episcopacy  and  not  any  theory  as  to  its  char- 
acter.” 


INDEX 


Abolition  movement,  effect  of, 
on  unity,  281-282. 

Administrative  union,  see  union. 

Africa,  cooperation  in,  310; 
church  union  in,  3 12-3 13. 

Alliance  of  Reformed  Churches 
holding  the  Presbyterian  Sys- 
tem, 251,  253. 

American  Bible  Society,  coopera- 
tion in,  21,  30,  55,  246,  295- 
298.  305- 

American  Board  of  Commis- 
sioners for  Foreign  Missions, 
cooperation  in,  290-295. 

American  Council  on  Organic 
Union,  see  ‘‘Philadelphia 
plan.” 

American  Sunday  School  Union, 

318-319- 

American  Systematic  Benefi- 
cence Society,  276-277. 

American  Tract  Society,  246. 

Anglican  Church,  87,  89,  90, 
160;  see  also  Lambeth  Con- 
ference. 

Anti-Saloon  League,  49,  113, 
282-283. 

Anti-Slavery  movement,  281- 
282. 

Apostolic  period,  divisive  and 
unitive  forces  in,  207-212. 

Association  for  the  Promotion  of 
Christian  Unity,  54-55,  249- 
250. 

Australia,  union  movements  in, 
55.  66,  353. 

Baptists,  divisions  and  unions 
among,  238,  243,  244,  248. 

Baptists,  Northern,  referred  to, 
43,  49,  203,  297  et  passim; 
attitude  toward  unity,  70-77. 

Baptists,  Southern,  30,  72,  90, 
173-174,  242. 

Campbells,  founders  of  Dis- 
ciples, 52,  245,  249,  298-300. 

Canada,  union  movements  in, 
66,  130-131,  352-353.  354- 


Catholic  Church,  see  Roman 
Catholic. 

Catholic  period  of  church  his- 
tory, divisive  and  unitive 
forces  in,  2 12-2 17. 

China,  cooperation  in,  304,  305, 
306,  308,  310,  31 1 ; church 
union  in,  31 1-3 12. 

Christian  Commission,  282. 

Christian  Denomination,  56. 

Christian  Endeavor  Society,  49, 
245,  277,  279-280. 

Church,  differing  views  as  to 
nature  of,  1,  104,  172-175, 
187,  189-192,  200-201;  unity 
of,  see  unity. 

City  mission  work,  cooperation 
in,  135- 

Clark,  Francis  E.,  see  Christian 
Endeavor  Society. 

Cleveland  “Church  and  Com- 
munity” Convention,  117-118. 

Commissions  of  the  Federal 
Council,  see  Federal  Council. 

Committee  on  the  War  and  the 
Religious  Outlook,  v-ix,  154, 
346. 

Community  Church,  3,  102-1 10. 

Comprehension,  not  exclusion, 
desired,  187-188,  191,  202, 
207,  330-332,  350- 

Concordat  of  Episcopalians  and 
Congregationalists,  3,  88,  105. 

Congregational  Churches,  rela- 
tion of,  to  unity,  46-52,  55-56, 
88,  105,  247,  251,  285-289, 
291-294  et  passim. 

Cooperation,  relation  to  union, 
9,  52;  need  for  today,  37-44; 
during  the  war,  19-37,  186 ; 
in  local  communities,  96-122; 
past  experience  of,  185-186; 
see  also  under  unity  and 
union. 

Corporate  union,  12;  see  also 
union,  organic. 

Council  of  Church  Boards  of 
Education,  cooperation  in, 
138,  152,  344- 


383 


3^4 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Council  of  the  Reformed 
Churches  of  America  holding 
the  Presbyterian  System,  80. 

Council  of  Women  for  Home 
Missions,  137-138,  152. 

Councils  of  Churches,  see  fed- 
erations. 

Cumberland  Presbyterian 
Church,  union  with  Presby- 
terian in  U.  S.  A.,  79,  170, 
240-241,  243,  248,  301. 

Denominations,  work  of,  in  the 
war,  24-28;  present  sense  of 
responsibility  among,  38-44; 
increased  self-consciousness, 
42-44,  72,  168-171;  history  of 
development  in  U.  S.,  230- 
2 55;  significance  of,  332. 

Detroit,  International  Conven- 
tion of  Y.  M.  C.  A.  at,  127- 

132. 

Disciples,  relation  of,  to  unity, 
52-57,  245,  249-250,  251-252, 
298-302. 

Divisions  in  American  Chris- 
tianity, causes  of,  239-245. 

Divisive  and  unitive  factors  in 
the  history  of  the  Church, 
207-229. 

Eastern  Church,  89,  160,  161, 
2 13-2 15,  252,  367. 

England,  union  movements  in, 
67,  130,  350-351- 

Episcopal  Church,  relation  of,  to 
unity,  26,  55,  83-90,  105,  160, 
186,  203,  242,  250-251,  252, 
366. 

Evangelical  Alliance,  244,  253, 
262-267. 

Evangelical  Association,  241. 

Evangelism,  cooperation  in,  120- 
12 1,  262,  278;  see  also  re- 
vivals. 

Faith  and  Order,  World  Con- 
ference on,  3,  55,  76-77,  81, 
88,  160-164,  200,  251,  350, 
366-368. 

Federal  Council  of  the  Churches 
of  Christ  in  America,  3,  21, 
23,  28-30,  32,  38,  39,  50,  54, 
55-  89,  90,  91,  94,  109,  1 13, 

133,  149,  I5I-I55,  156,  157, 
158,  159,  166,  186,  192,  195- 
196,  253,  267,  344,  345,  368. 


Federal  union,  see  union. 

Federated  churches  in  local  com- 
munities, 99-101. 

Federation  of  Woman’s  Boards 
of  Foreign  Missions,  137-138, 
152,  317- 

Federations,  local,  3,  50,  89,  93- 
94,  1 10-122,  163-164. 

Foreign  missions  and  unity,  see 
unity. 

Foreign  Missions  Conference, 
cooperation  in,  135-136,  152, 
155,  316-317,  344- 

Free  Baptists,  72,  248. 

Freedom,  need  for,  in  any  union, 
329-330. 

Friends,  91,  244,  281. 

General  War-Time  Commission 
of  the  Churches,  6,  24,  28-35, 
38,39,40,  87,90,  94,  154,  186. 

Geneva  Conferences  in  1920, 
366-370. 

Gladden,  Washington,  49. 

Great  Britain,  see  England. 

Greek  Church,  89;  see  also 
Eastern  Church. 

History  of  Christian  coopera- 
tion and  unity;  in  apostolic 
period,  207-212;  in  Catholic 
period,  2 12-2 17;  in  Protestant 
period,  217-227;  in  early  pe- 
riod in  America,  230-239;  of 
causes  of  divisions  in  America, 
239-245;  of  attempts  at  union 
of  American  churches,  245- 
255 ; of  undenominational 
movements,  256-284;  of  in- 
terdenominational m o v e- 
ments,  285-324. 

Home  Missions  Council,  coop- 
eration in,  100,  109,  136-137, 
152,  155,  192,  344- 

Huntington,  W.  R.,  88. 

India,  cooperation  in,  305,  308, 
309,  310;  church  union  in, 
3I2-3I3- 

Individualistic  conception  of  re- 
ligion, 176-178. 

Interchurch  World  Movement, 
3.  7.  73-74.  ”7.  135.  140-150, 
186,  195,  253,  279,  343. 

International  Sunday  School  As- 
sociation, 1 13,  138,  246,  319, 
322. 


INDEX 


International  Sunday  School 
Lesson  Committee,  319,  321. 

Japan,  cooperation  among 
churches  in,  305,  306,  307,  3x0. 

Jews,  cooperation  with,  32,  94. 

Lambeth  Conference,  in  1908, 
350;  in  1920,  87n.,  163-164, 
351-352,  359-365- 

Latin  America,  missionary  co- 
operation in,  304,  306,  307, 
316. 

Laymen’s  evangelistic  move- 
ment, 278. 

Laymen’s  Missionary  Move- 
ment, 144,  278. 

Local  communities,  cooperation 
in,  96-122,  344. 

Lutheran  Church,  United,  43, 
57-61,  248;  attitude  toward 
union,  61-63. 

Lutheran  Commission  for  Sol- 
diers’ and  Sailors’  Welfare, 
60,  186. 

Lutheran  Council,  National,  60. 

Lutheran  Synodical  Conference, 
59-60. 

Lutherans,  Norwegian,  59. 

Maine,  early  experiments  in  co- 
operation in,  97. 

Massachusetts,  union  churches 
in,  98-99. 

Men  and  Religion  Forward 
Movement,  278. 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  3, 
26  et  passim;  relation  to  ques- 
tion of  unity,  63-70,  248,  339. 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  64-66,  242,  339. 

Missionary  Education  Move- 
ment, 144,  317. 

Montana,  cooperation  in  home 
missionary  work  in,  105. 

Muhlenberg,  W.  A.,  250. 

Northern  Baptist  Convention, 
see  Baptists,  Northern. 

Old  Catholics,  89. 

Oriental  Orthodox  Catholic 
Church,  see  Eastern  Church. 

“Philadelphia  plan”  of  organic 
union,  3,  55,  81-82,  156-160, 
197.  253.  355-358. 


385 

Pittsburgh  conference  on  inter- 
church  work,  1 15. 

“Plan  of  Union”  between  Con- 
gregationalists  and  Presby- 
terians, 46-47,  247,  285-289. 

Presbyterian  Church  in  the  U. 
S.  A.,  referred  to,  3,  43,  242, 
252,  253,  281,  339;  relations 
of,  with  Congregational 
Churches,  46-47,  48,  247,  285- 
289,  291-294;  attitude  to  co- 
operation and  union,  77-83, 
156,  170;  union  of  Old  School 
and  New  School,  240,  243, 

248,  289,  293-294. 

Presbyterian  Church  in  the 

U.  S.,  3,  80,  240,  242,  248, 

249.  339- 

Principles  underlying  progress 
toward  unity,  327-347. 

Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
see  Episcopal. 

Protestant  period  in  church  his- 
tory, divisive  and  unitive 
forces  in,  217-227. 

Quadrilateral,  Chicago-Lam- 
beth,  70,  160,  250-251,  252, 
349- 

Quakers,  see  Friends. 

Reformation,  effect  of,  on  unity 
of  church,  see  Protestant 
period. 

Reformed  Church  in  America, 
80,  292,  294. 

Reformed  Church  in  U.  S.,  80, 
241,  246. 

Reformed  Episcopal  Church, 
244- 

Revivals,  effect  of,  on  unity, 
234,  240,  258-262;  see  also 
evangelism. 

Religious  education,  bearing  of, 
on  unity,  see  unity. 

Religious  Education  Associa- 
tion, 322n. 

Religious  experience,  different 
types  of,  175-178. 

Roman  Cath'olic  Church,  10,  86, 
90,  91,  160,  161,  213-217,  252, 
354,  et  passim;  recent  co- 
operation with,  30,  32,  92-95. 

Root,  E.  T.,  49. 

Rural  communities,  need  for  co- 
operation in,  97. 


386 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


Sacramentarian  view  of  religion 
vs.  individualist,  176-178. 

Salvation  Army,  91,  125-126, 
149. 

Scotland,  union  of  Presbyterian 
churches  in,  170,  354;  status 
of  Y.  M.  C.  A.  in,  10,  130-131. 

Social  reform  movements,  effect 
of,  on  unity,  280-283. 

Southern  Baptist  Convention, 
see  Baptists,  Southern. 

Stewardship  movement,  276. 

Student  movement,  bearing  of, 
on  unity,  273-276. 

Student  Volunteer  Movement, 
275- 

Sunday  School  Council,  coopera- 
tion in,  138,  152,  320,  322,  344. 

Sunday  School  movement,  see 
religious  education. 

Swedish  Churches,  89. 

Temperance  movement,  effect 
of,  on  unity,  282-283. 

Theological  differences,  bearing 
of,  upon  union,  171-175,  179- 
182. 

Undenominational  movements 
today,  1 2 3- 1 34;  history  of, 
256-284. 

Uniformity,  dangers  of,  177-178, 
187,  202. 

Union,  administrative,  10-11, 
134-150,  193;  federal,  10-11, 
150-155.  191.  194-196,  204, 
345;  organic,  10-12,  52,  81-82, 
156-164,  198-203,  345;  factors 
that  impede,  168-178;  factors 
that  promote,  178-189;  among 
denominations  of  same  family, 
202-203 1 see  also  under  unity. 

Union  churches,  97-99. 

Unitarians,  49,  90-91,  243. 

United  Brethren,  241. 

United  Lutheran  Church,  see 
Lutheran. 

United  Presbyterian  Church,  80, 
159,  292. 

Unity,  church,  distinguished 
from  Christian  unity,  2,  9,  13, 
167;  distinguished  from  union, 
9,  190,  201;  essential  to  con- 
ception of  Christianity,  8, 
179-182;  within  the  denomi- 
nation, 4,  6,  39-92,  335-336, 


338-339;  in  the  local  com- 
munity, 96-122;  within  the 
Church  as  a whole,  123-164; 
as  influenced  by  the  war,  5-6, 
19-44,  94,  104,  ill,  182-183; 
relation  to  foreign  missions,  7, 
41,  73,  82-83,  135-136,  181, 
183,  291-294:,  302-317;  rela- 
tion to  social  prpblems,  7,  41, 
183-184;  relation  to  Christian 
education,  7,  41,  317-324;  re- 
lation to  international  prob- 
lems, 184;  extent  to  which  it 
already  exists,  41,  332-333, 
336-337;  principles  to  be  fol- 
lowed, 39-42,  327-347;  see 
under  union,  et  passim. 

Universal  Conference  on  Chris- 
tian Life  and  Work,  55,  368. 

Universalists,  243-244. 

Upsala,  Archbishop  of,  56,  368. 

Vermont,  cooperation  in,  109. 

War  and  Christian  unity,  5-6, 
19-44,  94,  104,  hi,  182-183. 

War  commissions,  24-28. 

Welsh  Calvinistic  Methodist 
Church,  80. 

Woman’s  Christian  Temperance 
Union,  113,  245,  283. 

World  Alliance  for  International 
Friendship,  55,  369-370. 

World  Conference  on  Faith 
and  Order,  see  Faith  and 
Order. 

World’s  Student  Christian  Fed- 
eration, 275-276. 

World’s  Sunday  School  Associa- 
tion, 321. 

Young  Men’s  Christian  Associa- 
tion, 3,  9-10,  149,  154,  246; 
relation  to  the  Church  in  the 
war,  21-22,  32,  33,  34,  35-36; 
relation  to  the  Church  today, 
126-132,  165-166,  344;  his- 
tory of,  267-271,  274. 

Young  Women’s  Christian  Asso- 
ciation, 3,  9-10,  21,  149,  246; 
relation  to  the  churches  in  the 
war,  22-24,  28,  36;  relation  to 
churches  today,  132-134, 
165-166,  344;  history  of,  271- 
273,  274-275. 


Date  Due 


l 

i 

F i s u' 

fFB27»5? 

i «ii  (kt  si 

A * if/rfrf  i 

4tfe  z^iat 

JUN  * 

i v 2UUB 

-Up 

;i'  IT 

f » i * > F> 

!f>8  ® ® ^ 15 

a a rw 

6/30/2012 

0 1 5 %$ 

ns?: 

s 

TjjJS 

p i n ’4*? 

Mci//  tv 

,f(7^ 

htmx 

f ACii{  i 

~E  26  ’51 

0 

AP  3 0 ’51 

sr<l996 

JW 

*T  0 1 

r p 1 X ’C' 

ill  v S' 

. 

• 

V 


*1 

4 


S' 


* ^ ** 


i 

if 


